Thanks all of you who pushed for the US to break with Uzbekistan after the Andijan massacre that left hundreds dead. 
You got what you wanted! Uzbekistan has now imposed flight restrictions on our “K2″ airbase, all while saying it has nothing whatsoever to do with our response to the Andijan massacre aftermath. (Yeah, right.) The Turkish Zaman reports that the US is now moving equipment, planes, and personnel into bases in Afghanistan, and that the base is effectively closed.
There’s more. President Karimov’s “enemies list” — which used to only contain Taliban-esque Islamists — has now been expanded to add “so-called democrats” to the roster. Eurasianet reports — accurately, I believe — that Tashkent could be preparing to break with Washington. The article also notes that it isn’t just our finger-wagging: the US is widely believed to be the main sponsor of recent revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, and Tashkent wants nothing to do with us.
The end result of this is that we are going to see a far more repressive regime now that the US has lost influence. But if you want yet another example of how the media just doesn’t get the bigger story, see this:
Uzbek ministries in deadly attack got U.S. aid
By C.J. Chivers and Thom ShankerUzbek law-enforcement and security ministries implicated by witnesses in the deadly crackdown last month in the city of Andijan have for years received training and equipment from counterterrorism programs run by the United States, according to U.S. officials and congressional records…
Witnesses and U.S. officials say the Uzbek army, law-enforcement and intelligence service were all present at the crackdown. Among them was a special Internal Affairs counterterrorism unit known as Bars, which has two or three members who trained in a course sponsored by the State Department for crisis-response commanders in Louisiana in 2004, according to the State Department.
Two or three members! Congratulations for that breaking story, Messrs Chivers and Shanker. Who cares about the big picture when we could have a “School of the Americas” story our hands?
My suggested policy in this regard can be read here, although I’m the first to admit that I’m no policymaker. And I understand that those who do decide the direction of US foreign affairs are underpaid, overworked bureaucrats who work incredibly hard to accurately factor in numerous unquantifiables. But what jerk in the State Department said last year, “let’s cut off aid to Uzbekistan because it will make us look good in the eyes of all those human rights groups”? Goodbye, crucial ally. (More bad editorials in reputable publications totally blind to reality in Central Asia can be seen proposing crappy Uzbekistan policy here and here.)
And not to be too hagiographic about the clairvoyance of our namesake, but remember what Robert D. Kaplan said two months ago: the real winners are the Chinese.
The Chinese surely hope, for example, that our chilly attitude toward the brutal Uzbek dictator, Islam Karimov, becomes even chillier; this would open up the possibility of more pipeline and other deals with him, and might persuade him to deny us use of the air base at Karshi-Khanabad.
Foreign service officials should brush up on their reading of recent history. In many ways, our policy towards Uzbekistan is a picture-perfect repeat of what happened in the horn of Africa in the 1970s and 1980s, of which the best account can be read in Kaplan’s Surrender or Starve. History doesn’t repeat itself, but the best way to understand the present is to study the past.
A couple of things. One relax I don’t see us as actually having “lost” anything we can’t take back at a moments notice if need be.
Second, I can’t imagine us going any lighter on him that we did. Hell he did his own Tiananmen and we blocked an investigation into it along with Russia in NATO. Talk about going to bat for someone. He is entirely to blame for not managing his country any better that it led to such a rebellion, not us for having to put up with such an incompetent ally.
He probably was afraid of a US backed “people power” movement within his country, but he reacted poorly to his fear and now he can be assured that we are going to overthrow him.
China will attempt build ties with the Uzbeks as fast as they can, which means with typical Chinese slowness. I have full confidence in the Chinese behaving as themselves.
Is this a bad thing? Yeah, we would rather it had not happened. I see only good coming from this long-term. Now we no longer have an excuse to support this clown and his days are numbered. If he is still in power two years from now it will be a miracle.
Well, I’m pretty much OK with things turning out this way if it’s because Uzbekistan decided to have a hissy-fit. As important as I think the relationship is, there’s no good reason for us to bend over backwards to soothe Karimov’s enormous ego–something we’d probably have had to do in this situation.
But my visceral reaction to the Chivers story was “2 or 3? C’mon, guy, what are you, some kind of fool?” Their possible presence that day does very little to diminish from the value that the military training programs do have. Our officers were not there that day directing the operations, so I can’t be too terribly worked up about this. There certainly are conditions under which our training could be a significant problem, but it’s nice for me to know that there are mid-level Uzbek officers who like, respect, and have ties to the US military. After all, it’s not as if everyone in the Uzbek military and government is exactly enamored with Karimov’s increasingly problematic style of governing.
Inept as it can often be, Bush II’s foreign policy is nowhere near the failure on so many levels that Ford and Carter’s were.
The Bush team has a decent appreciation of the strategic picture here don’t you think? Not just relations with Uzbekistan, but with the other ‘stans and Georgia, Armenia and others. Or am I wrong? (I will be the first to admit I am nowhere near an expert on this region as many of the CA team and the regular guests.)
On another note, its not like its Bush himself or even Sec. Rice raising hell over what happened. Just the usual human rights groups and a few US senators, whose total influence on US gov’t policy (especially in light of recent events, like McCain’s bucking of the White House and the GOP on the fillibuster and AI/HRW’s political games with Gitmo) is next to nil.
I just gave a closer reading and this jumped out at me:
Last year it was Colin Powell apparently. This year, I’m sure it was made at a very high level. Though I disagreed with the move last year, I agree with it this year. Last year and this year, it had very little to do with satisfying NGOs but what our law says and what the 2002 memorandum of understanding says.
As far as I’m concerned, holding our allies to their word and following through with threatened consequences is important to our credibility. Uzbekistan failed miserably. Not because it was difficult and they couldn’t meet our expectations, but because Karimov thinks: 1) that he’s smarter than us; and, 2) that we didn’t really mean what we said.
If he wants to dick us around–and the Uzbek government is entirely to blame for the worsening relations here–then he can reap what he’s sown. And it’s not as if letting our relationship with Karimov die is some short-sighted emotional breakdown over human rights or democracy. This will bite him in the ass. If a democratic alternative appears able to replace him, then great. If not… Well, I’m sure Zakir Almatov has good reason to bear a grudge.
Thanks, Nathan, for putting it in perspective. I certainly agree that “holding our allies to their word and following through with threatened consequences is important to our credibility” – I would say “essential”… at least when we can,,,,
Why don’t the leftists make like shepherds and get the flock out of the US of A?
Sry, but I’m feeling particularly antipathic towards all the leftist protesters (who never once protested Soviet atrocity).
The more dangerous and destablizing government sanctioned mass murder campaign is not in Uzbekistan, but in Sudan’s Darfur region.
Here, the US is working closely with the Sudanese intelligence and military services that are actively assisting the Janjaweed miiltias in their slaughter of Darfur’s population. Here, the US’s democracy agenda is truly shown to be a farce. Here, the CIA is inviting the architects of the genocide there to come to America and develop better working relationships.
Yet where is the outrage on Capitol Hill? Where is the anguish of Sens. McCain, Graham, etc etc? Where is Condi Rice giving stern warnings about protecting human life and rights?
This to me shows not only the ineptitude of the president’s foreign policy critics (for picking a poor target in Uzbekistan) but the total lack of shame of its supporters who can lecture Uzbekistan with a straight face while holding hands with Sudan.
Karimov is a bad dictator with one bloody massacre on his hands, Bashir and the ilk in Khartoum are mass murderers waging jihad against hundreds of thousands, committing massacres on a daily basis.
I guess this is a 2005 update of Stalin’s old adage: kill 1,000 or so and you’re a mass murderer we can’t support. Kill 400,000 and you’re a statesman, a vital WOT ally.
Pingback: Registan.net
Speaking Victorian in Uzbekistan
“Speak Victorian, think Pagan.” Kaplan’s clever phrase is also the motto of Coming Anarchy. I wonder, though, if Curzon takes that maxim as seriously as he should….
Pingback: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Thanks for nothing, repeated