Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

June 8th, 2005

Tags

, ,

Comments

15 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Self-Righteous Lefties on Uzbekistan

The UK Independent has an article on Human Rights Watch—which is the real-life equivalent of Skeletor teaming up with Darth Vader—on why the US should end all assistance to Uzbekistan right now. The article was written for total morons: in case you couldn’t get their jist, they made sure to save no expense in the superlative adjectives and adverbs to bring their point home.

Bullets ‘fell like rain’ during Uzbek massacre

The New-York based human rights organisation said its investigation into the events of 13 May left it in no doubt that the Uzbek government had systematically slaughtered hundreds of its own citizens in a “massacre” and then tried to cover up the atrocities. The evidence it had uncovered was so compelling and the Uzbek government’s duplicity, guilt and intransigence so obvious, it added, that Washington was morally obliged to shut its air base in the south of the country.

(Emphasis added.)

“Yes, we would be giving up an asset in Uzbekistan,” Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said in Moscow. “But if we don’t act when the government slaughters hundreds of its own civilians, when are we going to act?”

When indeed! I’d sure like to know. When are we going to act on the millions killed in the Congo? Or the millions starved in North Korea? Or the hundreds of thousands killed in the Sudan? Or sheesh, if we’re listing countries where the government just kills more than hundreds of its own civilians we’d be here all day: Zimbabwe, Uganda, Venezuala, Burma, China, Nepal, Bolivia, India, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, Turkey, Algeria, Cote d’Ivoire… but whoops! How silly of me! HRW only cares about the US and the EU doing something to stop this when it’s “giving up an asset.” When no national interest is at stake, they frankly don’t give a damn.

HRW is jumping on board the “US out of Uzbekistan” group, a policy equally favored by numerous lunatics too many to mention (but one who deserves special notice is pro-Taliban Mukhammad Salikh). A US withdrawal from Uzbekistan would do nothing except lose us a strategic ally, put Afghanistan’s stability at risk, give China a new buddy (which they would support with no commentary on Karimov’s human rights record), sacrifice our interests, and be a victory for terrorists. The people already killed cannot be brought back to life. The best strategy to pursue is one of constructive engagement.

I know a lot of my posts have been bashing left-wing NGO, but ever since that Gitmo-Gulag report got front page coverage, these groups have smelled blood in the water. And this garbage can’t go unanswered.

Comments to this entry

Nathan
June 8, 2005
3:17 am
Well, I'm not sure we have a strategic ally in Uzbekistan anymore. And it's 100% not our fault. In fact, the vindictive part of me has wanted to see them punished for failing to give much of a go at keeping their word to us under the terms of the 2002 memorandum of understanding. We might just get a chance to prove that the US and Europe are much better partners than China or Russia.

Anyhow, I do have to speak up in Tim's defense. He's no self-righteous lefty, and I certainly don't think he advocates a break with Uzbekistan. He's actually more or less supportive of Bush's foreign policy. I think he misinterprets it (for some understandable reasons), and I disagree with him on the application. But he is a good guy.
Curzon
June 8, 2005
3:53 am
I think my reference to Tim was "lunatic," not "self-righteous lefty."

Regardless, you may be right about Uzbekistan no longer being our ally. Not sure if I blame the State Dept yet...
Martey
June 8, 2005
3:54 am
The recommendations of the HRW report are far more nuanced than they are portrayed in the article. HRW seems to be suggesting that the United States "constructively engage" Karimov's government by tying negotiations for a permanent basing agreement in Uzbekistan to their permission for an investigation into the Andijan incident. If this is not constructive engagement, I am not sure what is.
Curzon
June 8, 2005
4:04 am
I see no advisements of engagement, constructive or otherwise, in the June 6th report. Executive director Kenneth Roth's said the above quote on June 8th. And since the Uzbek government has made it clear it will oppose any inquiry, please note the report says...

"If the Uzbek government does not accept such an investigation, the United States should bring an end to its post-September 11 strategic partnership with Uzbekistan and discontinue its military presence in the country."
Martey
June 8, 2005
4:33 am
The calls by Human Rights Watch for an independent investigation only echo the State Department, which has repeatedly "urged" the Uzbek government for an impartial investigation. If Karimov ignores this, I am not sure whether you could claim that the United States is *really* engaging Uzbekistan. While US interests in Central Asia would be hurt by "losing" Uzbekistan, they are not being helped by seeming to be in cahoots with Karimov (it is worth noting that the list of "other countries" does not include many states that the United States has "strategic partnerships" with).
snow
June 8, 2005
7:23 am
Curzon, don't apologize for bashing lefties. It's always a pleasure to see with all the bs so many of them get away with.
Nathan
June 8, 2005
2:16 pm
Martey, we most definitely are trying to engage Uzbekistan. They are totally ignoring us. That's been their way of doing business for about the past year.

I hate the "in cahoots" characterization in all its forms. It's hopelessly ill-defined, suggests a relationship that doesn't exist, and seriously limits the possibility of a serious discussion of the impact of our policy.

HRW's suggestions are pretty vanilla. It's hard for me to see what goal they would help achieve. If more aid was on the table to be taken away, then the threats might mean something. But as it is, they get a pittance that they probably don't care about losing. If HRW wanted to be a little more courageous, maybe they would recommend offering more aid to be given in exchange for reforms.
praktike
June 8, 2005
2:56 pm
Damn those lunatic leftists at the Washington Post!

(btw, you're going to have to do better than hurl insults to make the case for why whatever it is we're doing in Uzbekistan has constituted "engagement" rather than "eroding American credibility for little tangible benefit.")
Curzon
June 8, 2005
3:11 pm
in re do better:

Please see first paragraph after second blockquote.
Nathan
June 8, 2005
3:44 pm
prak, are you saying we haven't engaged them or just flicking Curzon for not spelling out every last detail. Because, as I so often mention, just because someone hasn't delivered the evidence to your doorstep doesn't mean there isn't any.

2002-2004 there our efforts at constructive engagement did produce tangible benefits. Not enormous benefits but they were there. Late 2004 to present they've been much less responsive to any of our efforts. That this eroded our credibility only confirms to me a significant level of public ignorance about US policy towards Uzbekistan and the extreme difficulty that we face working there.

Constructive engagement--our current policy--is the best of an extremely bad set of options in front of us. It certainly produces more tangible benefit than no policy at all.

I find the eroded credibility argument disingenuous, by the way. Many of those who put it forward go to great length to crow about inconsistency no matter what. There's a certain subset of folks who are never going to be satisfied with anything short of moral perfection and heaven on earth.

And further, who is it eroded with? Most of those who seem to be upset are not exactly the folks who we need to be impressing.
praktike
June 9, 2005
6:18 am
Well, in the old days, a massacre in Andijon would not have been reported along with the line, "Uzbekistan, a staunch US ally in the war on terrorism." I'm saying that the minor gains to engagement aren't worth hearing that line repeated over and over. Karimov is going to crack down on the IMU whether we support him or not. You are focused on Uzbekistan because you spent time there and want to see it suceed. So I think you're viewing the situation through the lens of "what do we do about Uzbekistan" rather than "how does being fairly or unfairly associated with Karimov hurt the image of the United States elsewhere for little or no apparent benefit?" So contingent upon finding an alternative to Khanabad, I say it's not worth it. There may still be spillover effects from our presence and support for reform elsewhere in the region. They already pulled out of GUUAM and are looking for support from the Chinese. I say we kick them in the ass on their way out, and it isn't just "lefties" that are saying this, unless you think John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Sununu and Mike DeWine are a bunch of Michael-Moore loving communists.
Curzon
June 9, 2005
7:31 am
"Uzbekistan, a staunch US ally in the war on terrorism."Â?
Staunch? We have a rent-free base close to the Afghanistan border, and that's about the end of it. We no longer provide any aid assistance as of 2004 (lots of good withdrawing aid did for us there... thanks for nothing, State). As Nathan has noted extensively, Karimov now treats us as if we are abandoning his regime because of our numerous human rights complaints about him... thanks for nothing again, State! And no, McCain et al are not lefties. They are desperately trying to salvage engagement with the Karimov regime. It may be too far gone.

As aluded to in a previous comment above, it's basically the State Dept's fault. (Although I'd be interested to hear if Nathan agrees with me on this one.) They got noisy about HR abuses, withdrew aid, and made the US appear pissed with Karimov. He's now fed up with us and is ready to send us packing, no matter what we do.

If you think we're making minor gains over engagement, what equal/greater gains will you make by abandoning Karimov? Besides make yourself feel good? As for our "image" should be our last concern. How does the EU look? (They're doing the exact same thing.)

Final word: remember Jimmy Carter and Ethiopia!
Nathan
June 9, 2005
9:45 am
Prak, then blame the media. I'm serious. You ever see the "Five facts" things I post from Reuters? 50% of every story is throw-away lines like that. Heaven forbid they do any actual reporting. And I do agree, Prak, we shouldn't bend over backwards for Uzbekistan. If they're going to go from mildly cooperative to hostile, then I'm all for putting the screws to them.

It's not State's fault, Curzon. It's Uzbekistan's fault. The reaction to democratic change in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan has been to blame foreign influences.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Ethiopian Police Fire on Crowd: 22 dead, 40 Injured
June 9, 2005
10:56 am
[...] field near the Afghanistan border. Human Rights Watch and plenty of others have said that the US should remove its base from Uzbekistan for the rece [...]
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Thanks for nothing
June 20, 2005
7:16 am
[...] Trackback URL Thanks for nothing Thanks all of you who pushed for the US to break with Uzbekistan [...]