< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://davejustus.com/" >

Thursday, May 19, 2005

A chance to avoid the precipice?

Times Online:

Uzbek government troops moved in overnight to retake an eastern border town from a rebel group who had vowed to fight for an Islamic state in the former Soviet republic, residents said today. ... Jeremy Page, a Times correspondent, reported that that troops and police moved into the town of Korasuv in the early hours and appeared to have taken it with minimal force after community elders promised that corrupt local officials would be replaced and the border with Kyrgystan reopened after a two-year closure. "They appear to have done a deal to avoid bloodshed," Page said from the Kyrgyz side of a border crossing near Korasuv that reopened this morning. "Speaking to Uzbeks coming across the border, it became clear that the police and military moved in overnight and retook the city without any fighting." ... US officials, aware that Mr Karimov's Government is a key regional ally in the War on Terror that has allowed the US to set up a major military base, also started to step up their criticism of the Andijan killings. "Reports being compiled paint a very disturbing picture of the events and the government of Uzbekistan’s reaction to them," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said. "It’s becoming apparent that very large numbers of civilians were killed by the indiscriminate use of force by Uzbek forces." Uzbek officials took foreign diplomats and journalists on a lightning-quick tour of Andijan yesterday, showing them a prison and the local administration building and arranging meetings with local officials. The delegation was kept blocks away from the people of Andijan, leaving little chance for an objective assessment of last week's violence. Some diplomats complained the trip was too short and limited to draw conclusions about the violence.
Reading between the lines here, there are some hopeful signs. Retaking the town through compromise rather than violence shows that Karimov is still sensitive to western criticism, and the incomplete diplomatic tour shows that as well. Increased (although mild) criticism from the U.S. is welcome here as well. I will add, that it is quite possible, and even likely, that we have been far more forceful in are criticism in public than we have been in private. Karimov is certainly a thug, but he may have enough self interest to start introducing some reforms and begin to move Uzbekistan toward democracy. I am certainly not betting on that yet, and will be keeping a close eye on developments. The peaceful retaking of Korasuv is certainly a welcome event though. In addition to showing that Karimov has some willingness to bend, it also shows that the Islamist threat in Uzbekistan is over-hyped, which leaves both a chance for real democratic reforms and undercuts Karimov's use of this as an excuse for future violence. There is still a very very long way to go before we can feel happy about Uzbekistan, but even a slim hope is better than none at all.

7 Comments:

Blogger The probligo said...

Hmm, which way WILL the US jump?

In support of a "good friend", one who is firmly on their side? It just happens that Karimov is the leader of a "government" described very generously by the CIA as "republic; authoritarian presidential rule, with little power outside the executive branch"

To help with the translation of that, here is CIA's view of Zimbabwe - "parliamentary democracy "

Now, if the Islamic people of Uzbekistan are wishing to establish a true democracy (even one paralleling the horrors of Zimbabwe) then why should the US stand in their way?

No, substitute Saddam for Karamov and you get the real picture...

5/19/2005 11:37:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Justus said...

The question is not should we stand in there way so much as should we help them.

I certainly have no interest in aiding a 'revolution' in any way, even rhetorical support, if the outcome is certain to be a Zimbabwe or Taliban Afghanistan.

No, if there is a fair chance for something better, and I think there is, that changes things.

5/20/2005 07:06:00 AM  
Blogger The probligo said...

Interesting problem, eh.

There was never any "doubt" about Iraq (whatever reason you might use to justify that little embrogliio), was there...

There was never any "doubt" about Afghanistan when the Taliban were fighting the Russians, was there...

There was never any "doubt" about Afghanistan when OBL took up the hospitality of the Taliban, was there...

But in the case of Karamov it is different "because the guy is useful".

5/20/2005 01:01:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Justus said...

I am not following the analogy you are trying to make here Probligo.

Are you trying to say America is a hypocrite for not actively invading Uzbekistan?

Wars are motivated, at the base, by one thing, and one thing only. The interests of the nation launching the wars. This is true for any war. Whether the war is just or not, is a seperate issue, and one that I think we should always pay a lot of attention to, but it doesn't even apply in a case when there is no utility for the war, or at least insufficient utility to make one worth it.

Fighting Soviet expansionism was not deemed worth launching a direct war, but it was deemed worth launching a proxy war. Defeating the Taliban and removing it as a sanctuary for Al-Qaida, and installing a democracy in that nation was deemed worthy of a war. Similar goals and merits existed for Iraq.

No one would, I believe, advocate that it is in the U.S. interests to replace Karimov with a different totalitarian. IF there must be a totalitarian there, than yes, obviously I would prefer a pro-American one to an Anti-American one.

I would certainly prefer no totalitarian there at all, but absent a definate threat to America, our allies, and our interests, or massive human rights violations approaching Genocide levels (and while sickening, the recent mascre does not rise that high) I would not advocate commiting U.S. forces directly to nation build a Democracy in Uzbekistan. Our power, while great, is certainly not limitless and we must choose where and when we employ it.

If I felt there was a responsible opposition in Uzbekistan, something I am still trying to discover, a group that would strive to build a democracy and promote human rights, then I would advocate supporting that group rhetorically and monetarily.

If it is a case of thugs battling to be top dog, I have no desire to help a different thug to top.

The formula is simple, First you ask is it worth it (and yes, enmity of the opponant changes that equation) and then you ask if it is just. If it isn't worth it, it doesn't really matter if it is just or not, you won't do it anyway.

5/20/2005 01:16:00 PM  
Blogger The probligo said...

No, but I think that it is ANOTHER example of US two-faced international policies.

Why is Bush very soft-footing on Karamov? His incoherent, stumbling, tongue-tied response to questions about democracy in Uzbekhistan says much (shown on NZ tv news Friday night), the silence from Rice (what IS her job again?) says even more.

The real name of the game is the right to use and maintain a airforce base on Uzbek soil - just over the way from Iran.

Still intent on the pursuit of old windmills...

The "American Way" is NOT about universal democracy. That has to be becoming the greatest joke of the past 4 and a half years.

It is about nothing more than "US Interests" first foremeost and last. What Bush is saying to the world is "We do not give a monkey's F*** about you, unless you cross our path. Woe betide ye if ye do..."

Dave, remember the joy and blessings that came from the White House at the news of "revolutions" in other past Soviet satellites? The welcoming of "new democracy"? The repetition of the mantras of "freedom" and "democracy" and "The American Way"?

What happened this time?

5/21/2005 03:24:00 PM  
Blogger The probligo said...

Let me put the question like this -

"Where is the overt support for the democracy movement in Uzbekhistan? Where is the shouted praise from the sidelines? Where are the encouragements - come ON!!! YOU CAN BE FREE!!!".

No, it is nothing more than a quiet word to Karamov "Just don't embarrass us...".

Can't see it?

5/21/2005 03:29:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Justus said...

I have certainly said previously, and I stand by that, that Uzbekistan is a test of the Bush administrations commitment to democracy.

I am not positive there is a side for us to support right now, but we can, and I think must, demand Karimov begin reforming his country and make clear that masacres like the one that happened a little over a week ago are unacceptable.

However, it certainly is not as black and white as your pretend. Where Ukraine and Lebanon, for example, were peaceful protests, Uzbekistan did start with a violent jail break, and while I am unwilling to believe all the claims against the 23 people that were specifically the targets against this raid, there were certainly a large number of violent prisoner's that were let out.

As I said, it is tough to know who, if anyone, is the good guys in Uzbekistan right now, and if we can't find any good guys, then who should we support?

5/23/2005 07:43:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home