May 17, 2005
Joining the orange, rose and tulip club
Uzbekistan is an anomaly: a Muslim country where the vast majority of the people support the U.S. It is because the U.S. was identified with opposition to the communists in the past and today supports democracy movements in that country and throughout Central Asia. But funding NGOs and bringing people to the U.S. for seminars is insufficient. The Uzbek dictator, Islam Karimov is a man who learned his business in the old Soviet school. He is unenthusiastic about democracy and doesn’t shy away from using deadly force. We can talk at him, but he understands only sterner measures.
Uzbekistan is a key ally in the war on terror and Karimov plays his trump card well and often. The problem is he is not a sincere ally in the war on terrorism - merely an opportunist using us to further his own corrupt agenda. We can't let him. The Uzbek people are our true friends - not their current leader - and if we must choose between a long oppressed people and a bloody dictator, I don't think it is a difficult choice.
Karimov claims Muslim extremists oppose him. He knows which of our buttons to push. Muslim extremists are certainly among his opponents, but most are just people who want to have a better life with more democracy and a freer market. The current crisis started when thousands demonstrated not about the abuse of a Koran, but against high taxes and restrictive state regulations. The danger is that oppression might drive these good citizens into the arms of the extremists.
We need Uzbekistan as an ally. That is true. The politics and priorities are complicated, but when in doubt we should make the choice consistent with our values of freedom, even if it seems a painful choice. The U.S. is not respected in the Middle East, where our policy until recently has been to do what was expedient to maintain existing relationships. We are appreciated in places like Poland, Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan where we chose a higher, albeit harder, road.
Those who sacrifice freedom for stability deserve, and usually get, neither. We have a chance to be on the right side. We have rhetorically condemned the indiscriminate use of force against unarmed civilians and deeply regret any loss of life. What would be regrettable is if that was all we do. Let's make sure we do more and help Uzbekistan join the orange, rose and tulip club.
Noble words, Jack, but what are our legitimate alternatives? The Islamist card is more than just a card: it’s one of the strongest factions in Uzbekistan. That doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed to succeed, and it’s certainly true that suppression will likely strengthen the radicals.
But again, what alternatives do we have? Depose Karimov ourselves? Is there really a democratic Uzbek movement for us to support? If so, I haven’t seen it. Uzbekistan has even less of a coherent, unified, and semi-democratic tradition than has Afghanistan, and we’ve seen how much fun things are their.
Posted by: Chops at May 17, 2005 11:03 PMGood topic. We’re up a creek in Uzbekistan. The US chose to side with a soviet-style dictator. In return for US support, the US received a major military base for staging invasions. The US also found Uzbekistan useful for rendition; no rules, and unusually vicious methods of torture.
Jack, I agree, the US belongs on the side of ‘the people.’
Unfortunately, US policy alienates Muslims.
A terrorist’s goal is to publicize a cause, and there is no such thing as bad publicity when it comes to asymmetrical warfare; the goal is to polarize, force people to choose sides, and destroy the conciliatory, comprimising middle.
In strategic terms, OBL succeeded in spectacular fashion. The US played into OBL’s hands by waging a traditional form of warfare against terrorism, through military invasion & occupation. The struggle turned into the US v Islam, the US & Israel v Islam, the US & Shias v Sunnis (if you could ever consider the Shias as allies), and crusading Christianity v jihadist Islam.
Polarization. ‘You’re either with us or against us.’ We fell for it like a ton of bricks, literally, the day the World Trade centers came down.
Now US policy finds itself in an almost impossible situation in Uzbekistan. There’s almost no chance those people will perceive the US as friendly, not after supporting Karimov.
Chops, you’re right, there are no good choices. But the best move is to do the right thing. The best move is to eschew close relations with tyrants, dictatorships, and theocracies.
US policy needs to walk away from Karimov and live with consequences of past policies. US policy needs to very slowly, calmly & cooly support Iranian democracy, Pakistani democracy, Lebanese democracy, Egyptian democracy.
Jimmy Carter called it. We need to stand for human rights.
It means turning away from support of theocratic regimes in Saudi Arabia. It means turning away form supporting a Jewish state.
Democracy is ‘hard work.’ Supporting human rights is even harder.
Posted by: phx8 at May 17, 2005 11:50 PMUzbekistan is another evidence card that Bush did not invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons. The Uzbek dictator is every bit as ruthless and murderous a dictator as Saddam Hussein but, Bush has done nothing for the people being crushed under his rule.
And you know what? Bush’s absence of action in Uzbekistan is finally an action I agree with. The cost to our nation and people for trying to remove him from power would just be too damned high.
So Bush got one right. Reminds me of an Arlo Guthrie saying about Ronald Reagan, ‘the more he sleeps in the oval office, the safer we are’. And the less action Bush takes, the better off we all are, (except maybe 2% of the population identified as the ultra wealthy and ultra-right wing neocon evangelical extremists). Now if we could only put him in suspended animation for another 3 years, we might actually fare pretty well.
I agree that the alternatives are tough and I suggest subtle versus overt pressure. We have a lot more leverage here than with Iraq. It is, of course, very complicated.
The interesting thing is that our policy thus far has not alienated these Muslims. On the contrary, support for the U.S. remains in the mid to high 80s. This is higher than most other counties (Muslim or otherwise) and higher than in the U.S.
My reason for writing this was to call attention to the situation. Those who have responded so far obviously know about it, but I don’t think most people do. We don’t have to topple the regime, but we do have to stand with the people. As in the other examples I mentioned, that may be sufficient.
I don’t think most Americans know how proactive U.S. policy in this area has been. These countries receive significant U.S. assistance, and much of it goes to non-government organization promoting free markets and democracy. We have also been very active in fighting human trafficking, which is a big source of income for organized crime (often tied to the ruling click) Some “realists†say we should lay off. That we shouldn’t do.
Jack, we agree again for a change. I agree with you entirely that subtle and non-confrontational efforts by the US to support Uzbeks is warranted given the people’s affinity to the US and Uzbekistan’s crushing rulership. However, our hands are extremely tied. We are running huge deficits which at some point simply must be stemmed, and the idea of providing aid to foreign citizens while cutting aid for needy Americans is just not an option in my playbook.
Sounds like a good time for the US to call upon the UN and NATO to act in our stead since we can’t afford to on our own. Of course diplomacy is usually cheap, so that card of course should be played to maximum benefit. Not the Pakistan style of US diplomacy however, of buying cooperation.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 18, 2005 10:04 AMDavid:
“Now if we could only put him in suspended animation for another 3 years, we might actually fare pretty well.”
Yeah, but we’d also need to KO all his henchmen, would we not?
Jack,
Thanks for the info. With everything else going on in the world, I haven’t really been following this story closely. Obviously I should read more about it.
“We don’t have to topple the regime,”
And with things boiling away on all four burners, it couldn’t possibly be wise to do at the moment.
“but we do have to stand with the people.”
Always a good idea for America.
Posted by: Adrienne at May 18, 2005 11:48 AMGood article in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1486298,00.html
Posted by: phx8 at May 18, 2005 12:49 PMJack,
Good post, I wasn’t aware of the conditions in Uzbekistan. In fact I barely new the country exsisted and I’m sure a lot more don’t either.
I’m not going to pretend to have a soultion to the problem, but I don’t think we need to be playing footsie with a guy like that.
Wow… Jack, Chops, phx8, David R. Remer, Adrienne, Ron Brown, and I all generally agree on something. Talk about refreshing!
Maybe there’s hope for this country yet! ;-)
As for Uzbekistan, there’s no easy answer. Like the Nazis vs. the Soviets, or Iraq vs. Iran, or maybe even Bush vs. Kerry… there’s no good guy to join sides with.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 18, 2005 03:11 PMJack,
Thanks for shining a light on something that’s not in the media spotlight. I am only vaguely familiar with the situation. You’ve got me wanting to learn more.
Posted by: Tom L at May 18, 2005 08:24 PMWhy do you hate Freedom?
Islam Karimov is a great ally in the War against Terror. He works hard doing what the US wants. Therefore, he does not torture and he does not oppress. The same way Pakistan’s Musharaff does not torture and oppress. All those who are Bush Allies are Good. Repeat Good.
I believe you are all falling for the Liberal Media Bias. I am disappointed in you. Chops. Jack. You guys should know better than this.
Why do you hate Freedom?
Posted by: Aldous at May 18, 2005 09:19 PMSometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Posted by: Jack at May 19, 2005 12:37 PMHey Jack that is my line!!! HEEHEE But I guess it’s appropriate so you can use it!!
Posted by: Traci at May 19, 2005 04:03 PMThanks Traci
I usually don’t get annoyed at posts, but sometimes things just are not constructive.
The other saying on the topic is the a fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer.
Posted by: Jack at May 19, 2005 04:48 PMAfter the Massacre: U.S. Policy Towards Uzbekistan
This event will be on May 24. For those of you who don’t live near Washington, the Heritage Foundation usually webcasts and/or posts transcripts. I will go and write a post re if it is good.
Jack~
Hey I like that line, I may steal it from time to time!
