Uzbekistan

Quantum

cdebru wrote:

there is a direct and active role been played by the US as alraedy documented in an earlier post
the US is training their police and army and investing over half a billion a year

What about this:

Read this one from July 2004: BBC Report
""The United States has frozen aid to Uzbekistan because of what it calls a lack of progress in democratic reforms."

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

I'm not interested in all of recorded history. I would rather stick with the issue at hand and I stand by my statement..

So you don't think that the "issue" at hand could have any roots in historical events?
Ever hear the saying "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"?

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

That is not why it's being done, if you really believe that I'm sorry for you.

If you disagree with me fine - please spare me the patronising comments.

You seem to be classing all Muslims as terrorists though, do you believe this to be the case?

Look at my list. Where do I list 'all muslims' ? if you want to argue a completely different point - one which I did not make, then do so separately please.

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

So you don't think that the "issue" at hand could have any roots in historical events?
Ever hear the saying "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"?

I prefer to stick with the topic at hand. If you want to dicuss history and roots I have no problem with that, and I am sure we would agree on many issues. But not here.
My statement in response to your specific comment stands.

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

Look at my list. Where do I list 'all muslims' ?

Muslims tend to make up the majority populations in Islamic states.
Also, you state that Karimov should be allowed to supress, by fatal force, protestors (who it would seem are mostly Muslims) in case they go on to form an Islamic state and attack us, and so on.

Hobbes

Quantum wrote:

"The United States has frozen aid to Uzbekistan because of what it calls a lack of progress in democratic reforms.

Hello?? Do a bit more research...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/uzbe-m16.shtml
By 2003, the aid had grown to $86 million. The following year, the State Department announced a largely symbolic cut of $18 million based on a 2002 Congressional decision tying aid to Uzbekistan’s human rights record and political reforms. The Karimov regime was non-plussed, and officials said that the funding would find its way to the country in any case on a piecemeal basis.

Included in the US aid programs has been the training of Uzbek officers at Fort Bragg in North Carolina and the provision of military trucks. The results could be seen in Friday’s massacre and the subsequent disposal of the bodies.
...
The services this odious regime provides Washington include the use of a large US military base at Karshi-Khanabad, near the long border with Afghanistan, where some 1,500 American military personnel are stationed,

Strange that the US has a military presense in Uzbek even now at the presidents permission. Only today have the said they will "scale down operations", not leave the country. We aren't talking about peacekeeping either, the US has had a base there for good part of 4 years while torture etc has been known for years before that (by the US too).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4565145.stm

Bit more recent for you? Or how about the fact the US doesn't say they are "Worried" for 5 days after the gunning down of protesters happened and it becomes world headlines?

Or how about again nice and recent for you.
Growing evidence U.S. sending prisoners to torture capital
Despite bad record on human rights, Uzbekistan is ally

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/01/MNGE5CI9MO1.DTL

Yes it is amazing what a bit of research does.

Lets not beat about the Bush here (no pun intended). He is a monster, he has even gone on record of saying he would crush childrens skulls if they got in his way. His record goes on years before Bush ever got cosy with him.

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

Muslims tend to make up the majority populations in Islamic states.

But they are not democracies and therefore don't always reflect the wishes of their people.

Also, you state that Karimov should be allowed to supress, by fatal force, protestors (who it would seem are mostly Muslims) in case they go on to form an Islamic state and attack us, and so on.

Regrettably I believe that that is our only alternative right now.

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

But they are not democracies and therefore don't always reflect the wishes of their people.

Firstly, there are Islamic majority countries that have elections.
Secondly, how do you propose the others become democracies if the West continues to support autocratic reigmes that are currently in place?

Quantum

Hobbes wrote:

Hello?? Do a bit more research...

I don't need to. Yours is more than suifficient.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/uzbe-m16.shtml
By 2003, the aid had grown to $86 million. The following year, the State Department announced a largely symbolic cut of $18 million based on a 2002 Congressional decision tying aid to Uzbekistan’s human rights record and political reforms. The Karimov regime was non-plussed, and officials said that the funding would find its way to the country in any case on a piecemeal basis.
Included in the US aid programs has been the training of Uzbek officers at Fort Bragg in North Carolina and the provision of military trucks. The results could be seen in Friday’s massacre and the subsequent disposal of the bodies.
...
The services this odious regime provides Washington include the use of a large US military base at Karshi-Khanabad, near the long border with Afghanistan, where some 1,500 American military personnel are stationed,

Out of date and your source is not exactly credible as a balanced point of view.. The aid was terminated in 2004 to the best of my knowledge. This report doesn't suggest otherwise.

Strange that the US has a military presense in Uzbek even now at the presidents permission. Only today have the said they will "scale down operations", not leave the country. We aren't talking about peacekeeping either, the US has had a base there for good part of 4 years while torture etc has been known for years before that (by the US too).

Non of this military activity is relevant to support of Uzbekistan - it is there to combat Islamic Terrorism in Iraq and the region. Your references simply do not support your accusations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4565145.stm
Bit more recent for you?

Again irrelevant reports about legitimate Strategic US forces in the country to combat INternational terrorism. Again it simply doesn't support your accusations.

Or how about the fact the US doesn't say they are "Worried" for 5 days after the gunning down of protesters happened and it becomes world headlines?

You say. I don't know that for a fact. And as I said previously I believe that we should not do anything that would result in the replacement of one dictator regime with a far more dangerous one.

Or how about again nice and recent for you.
Growing evidence U.S. sending prisoners to torture capital
Despite bad record on human rights, Uzbekistan is ally
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/01/MNGE5CI9MO1.DTL

This is a report as you say that the US have used Uzbekistan to tortue terrorists.
Firstly this is yet another reference of your that provides no evidence whatsoever that the US is still supporting the Uzbek dictator. Secondly it is only a report of 'reports' rather than direct evidence that it has happened. Thirdly I am 100% against this so called 'rendition' program.

Yes it is amazing what a bit of research does.

Yes. Three reports that provide no evidence whatsoever that the US continued support for the Uzbek dictator.

Lets not beat about the Bush here (no pun intended). He is a monster, he has even gone on record of saying he would crush childrens skulls if they got in his way. His record goes on years before Bush ever got cosy with him.

I agree 100%. if the people were to support a real democracy I would support ANY action to liberate them, apart from risking a war with Russia. But if they support an Islamic State then no I do not support any contribution to this change.

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

Firstly, there are Islamic majority countries that have elections.

True. But their scarcity excuses my generalisation I think.

Secondly, how do you propose the others become democracies if the West continues to support autocratic reigmes that are currently in place?

That, Frank, is a very good question. But alas the answer is not as straight forward as we would like.
I don't know the answer, but I do know that the EU has to get it's act together and get stuck into the Israeli issue. This issue MUST be tackled an solved fairly. Then Islam must undergo some kind of reformation and reject extreme radical islam. Then, just maybe, we can look at helping these people.

Quantum

Quantum wrote:

If you disagree with me fine - please spare me the patronising comments.

you should... chill

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

True. But their scarcity excuses my generalisation I think.

No, it does not excuse your generalisation.
For a start, one of those countries is Indonesia which has a population of 300 million+. You're not even making generalisations either, you're making absolute statements.
You didn't answer my earlier question either, do you think all Muslims are terrorists?

Then Islam must undergo some kind of reformation and reject extreme radical islam. Then, just maybe, we can look at helping these people.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of Muslims who do not agree with the actions of the minority of outright extremists. There are many condemnations of bombings, kidnappings etc. from Muslims but they don't make good news stories, do they? People seem more interested in rantings about Jihad and Infidels when reading about what Muslims think. Also, if the West were to try to encourage a reformation of Islam it will alienate the moderate Muslims along with the radical ones.
The reasons behind the actions of the extremists should be tackled as they are, in many cases, valid grievances, their methods of reacting against them are unacceptable however.
Your arguments might have some standing were it not for the fact that the West is responsible for many of the causes of extremism, so saying that we won't help them until they change is not really a viable solution, is it?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You have stated previously that it should be your right to invade another country to depose their democratically elected gvernment if you feel that 'standards' have slipped and you have deemed that those standards are your own. You are not a democrat and you certainly do not respect other peoples choices. Effectively, you are a bigot.

I've two quick points to make here.
1. in theory the UN could do exactly what Daveirl seems to reckon should be done in cases where seen fit.
The UN of course would have to agree first and go through a myriad of processes to get agreement which is rare.
2. ADIG, please could you make the point a little less dramatically, a ban of short duration follows.

Quantum

Earthman wrote:

you should... chill

I'm cool. I only asked for less patronising comments. Not too much to ask ?

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

No, it does not excuse your generalisation.

I believe it does

For a start, one of those countries is Indonesia which has a population of 300 million+.

is that all ?

You didn't answer my earlier question either, do you think all Muslims are terrorists?

I answered it thoroughly.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of Muslims who do not agree with the actions of the minority of outright extremists. There are many condemnations of bombings, kidnappings etc. from Muslims but they don't make good news stories, do they?

Absolutely. There are more than many - there are a hell of a lot.

People seem more interested in rantings about Jihad and Infidels when reading about what Muslims think. Also, if the West were to try to encourage a reformation of Islam it will alienate the moderate Muslims along with the radical ones.

No. We have to protect ourselves. As I said before I don't buy into the rediculous view that to protect ourselves we invite hate.

Your arguments might have some standing were it not for the fact that the West is responsible for many of the causes of extremism, so saying that we won't help them until they change is not really a viable solution, is it?

It is. And my arguments have the same standing as yours.

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

As I said before I don't buy into the rediculous view that to protect ourselves we invite hate.

If you can't accept, in the face of all evidence supporting it, that the West's actions are the cause of so many of the problems that are happening across the Muslim world today, then there's little point in trying to continue a discussion with you.

gandalf

Fe Fi Fo Fum I smell a resurrected banned account !!!

Hobbes

Quantum wrote:

Non of this military activity is relevant to support of Uzbekistan - it is there to combat Islamic Terrorism in Iraq and the region. Your references simply do not support your accusations.

US has a military base in Uzbekistan. It is there because of the assitance the US has given Uzbek. It has been there for years, even after the massacre it is still there. It doesn't matter if its there to shoot down rogue flying elephants, it is there because the US supports the countries actions. Did you see any US bases in Iraq while Saddam was there? How about Iran (and private companies of the VP don't count).

Do you honestly think that countries just let the US plonk a base in thier country for no reason?

You say. I don't know that for a fact. And as I said previously I believe that we should not do anything that would result in the replacement of one dictator regime with a far more dangerous one.

Now you cite your proof for that please. So you would prefer the status quo of the current president torturiing and killing political prisoners, changing laws to suit him (and maintain his power).

Secondly it is only a report of 'reports' rather than direct evidence that it has happened. Thirdly I am 100% against this so called 'rendition' program.
Yes. Three reports that provide no evidence whatsoever that the US continued support for the Uzbek dictator.

I post links to start you off. The Redition program has been ongoing even up to this year.

jesus_thats_gre

ss

bonkey

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Daveirl...can you give me a single example of anyone saying otherwise?

I mean...seriously...when's the last time someone said "I know my beliefs are wrong, but..."

You can not possibly be argueing that women are not equal to men, or that homosexuality is a crime.

No - I am arguing that there are people who believe otherwise to you and I on these issues. I am of the opinion that their beliefs are wrong, but I recognise that they are of the ecxact same opinion regarding mine.

I can argue my beliefs from a standpoint of humanitarianism, logic, and any number of other directions. They will (generally) argue theirs from a religious standpoint.

That's not to say that things we think are acceptable today won't be conservative as hell in years to come, but that's the point,

How is that the point? That just confirms that what you know to be right and wrong isn't in any means absolute, and you recognise that the perception of right and wrong will change over time.

All that can mean is that right and wrong are not absolute, which means that we have to understand that other people see right and wrong differently.

Simple example - many vegetarians see the killing of animals for food as wrong. Many meat-eaters don't. Both of them know they are correct. Other than that they don't start wars over this stuff....how is it any different?

Here's a question for you, do you think Turkey should have been forced to improve it's human rights before applying to join the EU or should we allow them in if it's their people's democratic choice to have repressive laws against women and homosexuals or whatever.

Turkey wasn't forced to do anything. Turkey was told that it had a choice - it could continue along its current path, or it could tread one more acceptable to the "club" that it wanted membership of.

Again - as with the EU not extraditing to the US - a free choice, left to them, with the impact of that choice effecting how we choose to deal and associate with them. The EU doesn't need Turkey. More correctly, any need it has for Turkey is currently ranked as a lesser factor than the unacceptability of Turkey's Human Rights record.

Getting back towards the original topic...I hsoudl clarify that denial (the stick) has been shown not to be the most effective way of dealing with these problems. Carrots are needed too. With Turkey, we have such a carrot - do it and you get in. With the US, we have no carrot, and the use of a stick would be counter-productive. So we just refuse to co-operate.

With Uzbekistan, it could be argued that there is a carrot-and-stick approach being taken, but I'm failing to see the stick. All I see is carrot after carrot. That, to me, amounts to support of a regime - a regime which is strategically useful to the US, and that strategic use is (unfortunately, in my perspective) of higher importance than any humanitarian issue, thus meaning that Humanitarianism gets the back seat, and expediency drives.

This isn't shockingly new news, I hope, to anyone here. I remember Sand (or was it Typedef) pointing to some well-written something which basically said that humanitarianism is - at best - a byproduct or secondary issue of nations taking action outside their own border. That ultimately is what this boils down to.

We can argue all we like about whether or not the US is propping up regimes, or whether or not it should prop up regimes, but underneath it all.....the regime and its behaviour is a secondary issue to the US (and the other powerful national governments and international bodies are no different), and its all about greed and self-interest.

The US is using these regimes because they benefit US policy. No more, no less. They could be fluffy-bunny-loving tree-hugging hippies, or a nation of Pol Pot wannabe's. Just as long as they're willing to play ball in the way the US decides it needs right now....thats all that principally matters.

Human Rights? Well....they'll give them a nod, and make the odd public statement and gesture about how they're encouraging the improvement of same....but at the end of the day, I honestly don't think they care either way.

jc

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

With Uzbekistan, it could be argued that there is a carrot-and-stick approach being taken, but I'm failing to see the stick. All I see is carrot after carrot. That, to me, amounts to support of a regime - a regime which is strategically useful to the US, and that strategic use is (unfortunately, in my perspective) of higher importance than any humanitarian issue, thus meaning that Humanitarianism gets the back seat, and expediency drives.

This isn't shockingly new news, I hope, to anyone here. I remember Sand (or was it Typedef) pointing to some well-written something which basically said that humanitarianism is - at best - a byproduct or secondary issue of nations taking action outside their own border. That ultimately is what this boils down to.

We can argue all we like about whether or not the US is propping up regimes, or whether or not it should prop up regimes, but underneath it all.....the regime and its behaviour is a secondary issue to the US (and the other powerful national governments and international bodies are no different), and its all about greed and self-interest.

The US is using these regimes because they benefit US policy. No more, no less. They could be fluffy-bunny-loving tree-hugging hippies, or a nation of Pol Pot wannabe's. Just as long as they're willing to play ball in the way the US decides it needs right now....thats all that principally matters.

Human Rights? Well....they'll give them a nod, and make the odd public statement and gesture about how they're encouraging the improvement of same....but at the end of the day, I honestly don't think they care either way.

I find your obsession with the US' position very limiting to your outlook on the wider issues of the situation. You don't look at the EU and it's positioning, or Ireland or the Middle East or that of any other country - only the US.

The truth is Uzbekistan is in a very important location for all of us, the EU, Ireland, Germany, the US, Australia, everyone. There is nothing you can throw at the US that you cannot throw at all of these countries, and all of them can see that there are huge issues involved. Hence the view that it's not as simple as you repeatedly try to portray it. Uzbekistan is right in the middle of a key region and an Islamic State could be dangerous for all of us, not just the precious USA. Reducing everything about the matter to the US doesn't shed much light on what should or should not be done imho.

shltter

Quantum wrote:

I find your obsession with the US' position very limiting to your outlook on the wider issues of the situation. You don't look at the EU and it's positioning, or Ireland or the Middle East or that of any other country - only the US.

The truth is Uzbekistan is in a very important location for all of us, the EU, Ireland, Germany, the US, Australia, everyone. There is nothing you can throw at the US that you cannot throw at all of these countries, and all of them can see that there are huge issues involved. Hence the view that it's not as simple as you repeatedly try to portray it. Uzbekistan is right in the middle of a key region and an Islamic State could be dangerous for all of us, not just the precious USA. Reducing everything about the matter to the US doesn't shed much light on what should or should not be done imho.

your semi right criticism should not be just directed at the US although it was the country most eager to overthrow saddam and bring "freedom" to Iraq but its allies in that campaign also deserve criticism as well

In a scathing interview published earlier Wednesday, Britain's former ambassador to Uzebkistan accused both London and Washington of being "hypocritical" in their dealings with the country.
"We back a dictator in Central Asia to get access to oil and gas, and we remove a dictator in Iraq to get access to oil and gas," Craig Murray told London-based newspaper Metro.
Murray lost his job as ambassador last year after accusing Karimov's government of human rights abuses.

the criticism is greater for the US because
1 it highlights how little they actually care about freedom and democracy

2 they are the country that is propping up this dictator

DadaKopf

Quantum wrote:

I find your obsession with the US' position very limiting to your outlook on the wider issues of the situation. You don't look at the EU and it's positioning, or Ireland or the Middle East or that of any other country - only the US.

The truth is Uzbekistan is in a very important location for all of us, the EU, Ireland, Germany, the US, Australia, everyone. There is nothing you can throw at the US that you cannot throw at all of these countries, and all of them can see that there are huge issues involved. Hence the view that it's not as simple as you repeatedly try to portray it. Uzbekistan is right in the middle of a key region and an Islamic State could be dangerous for all of us, not just the precious USA. Reducing everything about the matter to the US doesn't shed much light on what should or should not be done imho.

Yep, people shouldn't oversimplify. Talking about Uzbekistan, it's only correct to mention also the EU, various member-states, particularly the UK (this article is good). But you don't mention Russia, who is also a key player in this. To complicate matters further, you're not just talking about state-to-state relations - you're talking about the influence of corporations, industrial lobby groups, interest groups, the public-private military-industrial complex, bureaucrats, transnational media outlets, local actors, Islamic/Islamist politics, local power relations and so on, all of which influence outcomes in the international political economy.

So, sure, there's more to understanding power and interest in the world by boiling everything down to the America factor. But America is the global hegemon and is doing everything to keep things that way. America - with Europe and some others in tow - set the rules of the world system. So it's entirely right to concentrate on the US, but not to the point of losing essential detail. In my opinion, America and Europe play an excellent good cop/bad cop routine: America's in charge and Europe's the one saying, "I'm too old for this sh1t".

I agree with bonkey. It's usually said that there are three motives in international relations: security, economic and humanitarian. Humanitarian always gets a backseat to the other two. Take the global promotion of democracy. The US and Europe don't try to spread democracy via carrots and sticks because it's a good thing in itself, they promote it because (1) it plays well at home as an excuse to spend money on serving their national interests, (2) it suits the economic liberalisation agenda and so it's good for business, and (3) it comprises a strategy to lock developing countries into the world order America, with the other rich countries in tow, want. It's crazy that democracy is promoted in such an undemocratic way, even through aid. The same thing can be said of the establishment of the World Bank, IMF and the UN.

Foreign policy is about promoting the national interest, period. Even Ireland's foreign policy white paper states our selfish motives. America does this better than anyone else. As far as Uzbekistan goes, America and the UK see it as a good investment opportunity. It's also a crucial oil corridor and America has already committed itself to increasing its oil imports significatly by 2015. Since both Europe's and America's economies are strongly interdependent, America's National Energy Strategy sets part of the blueprint for Europe's energy strategy - so we're back to the US and US self-interest. But at the same time, as Europe starts oil negotiations with Russia, America is attempting to bear down on Russia and Eastern Europe. So we're back to America.

So shedding light on the effect America (i.e. government, corporations, interest groups etc.) has on policy around the world reveals a lot. I get the impression you're trying to excuse America for the stuff it does. But it also doesn't excuse Europe (the 'good cop'). Both have acted disgracefully in Uzbekistan.

... an Islamic State could be dangerous for all of us, not just the precious USA.

Could you explain what you mean by this? Dangerous how and why?

Quantum

DadaKopf wrote:

I get the impression you're trying to excuse America for the stuff it does. But it also doesn't excuse Europe (the 'good cop'). Both have acted disgracefully in Uzbekistan.

Not really... but yes, at times. In that no one is wrong all the time. I am anti Bush, who would do anything if it suited him and his neo-cons, but not anti american. I am anti many things they do and have done but I'm happy consider each on it's own merits.
I happen to believe that in international politics, nations must sometimes put their own survival and health before principles. It's not nice but it's the way life is. I understand where you are coming from but I myself don't accept that they or the EU have acted disgracefully in the light of the other issues involved, I don't accept that the US military presence is in any way a support of the regime. However on the issue of this 'rendition' crap - I don't agree with this sh1t at all.

Could you explain what you mean by this? Dangerous how and why?

In the way that I posted about above. An Islamic State would not be a democracy, and would likely join with Iran and act as a haven for internation extremist islamic terrorists and be a huge threat to Russia, the EU and the US etc. I don't think that is a good idea for us right now.

shltter

Quantum wrote:

In the way that I posted about above. An Islamic State would not be a democracy, and would likely join with Iran and act as a haven for internation extremist islamic terrorists and be a huge threat to Russia, the EU and the US etc. I don't think that is a good idea for us right now.

Uzbekistan is predominantly Sunni muslim

Iran is Shia muslim

Quantum

shltter wrote:

Uzbekistan is predominantly Sunni muslim
Iran is Shia muslim

Good point. But would that really stop them cooperating against the evil west ?

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

Good point. But would that really stop them cooperating against the evil west ?

What makes you think they would want to co-operate against anyone?
Why do you continually sterotype all Muslims/Muslim nations as terrorists out to get the West?

bonkey

Frank Grimes wrote:

What makes you think they would want to co-operate against anyone?

Its something to do with obsessing*, I think. Bit like me and America, apparently.

jc

*Given that teh poster who I'm making this allegation about already used this term in relation to me, after admonishing me and others that there was no need for impoliteness, I can only assume that said poster will not take this as an insult.

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

Its something to do with obsessing*, I think. Bit like me and America, apparently.

jc

*Given that teh poster who I'm making this allegation about already used this term in relation to me, after admonishing me and others that there was no need for impoliteness, I can only assume that said poster will not take this as an insult.

Apologies . . Point taken and comment withdrawn.

DadaKopf

Quantum, there was a dicussion about the nature of Islamic groups in Uzbekistan on TV today. According to experts on the region, the particular strand of Islam there, and the culture in general, isn't revolutionary or militant, hence not a threat. However, it hasn't stopped the Karimov regime from oppressing any opposition it identifies as a threat. And apart from some tokenistic gestures by the US, particularly National Endowment for Democracy projects, making it look like America's pursuing a diplomatic strategy, its just a whitewashing exercise.

The Islamic-based opposition isn't a security threat. But the US and UK regards any change in Karimov's allegiance as a threat.