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 massacreThe 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
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
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
Curzon
June 8, 2005
4:04 am
"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
snow
June 8, 2005
7:23 am
Nathan
June 8, 2005
2:16 pm
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
(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
Please see first paragraph after second blockquote.
Nathan
June 8, 2005
3:44 pm
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
Curzon
June 9, 2005
7:31 am
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
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
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Thanks for nothing
June 20, 2005
7:16 am