Uzbekistan

Quantum

DadaKopf wrote:

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.

I'm not convinced. It's a hell of a risk to take, to enable an Islamic State under current world conditions. "Experts" often disagree - and gambling our future on them isn't my idea of good planning. And as I have said before I don't see any gain for the west or the people of Uzbekistan for them to swop one dictator for another one. I don't see why people here are supporting it either. It's not as if they will be free, just jumping from the frying pan into the fire. In my opinion there are better ways to spend our energy and time on other countries where freedom is a real desire and opportunity.

Calina

Quantum wrote:

I'm not convinced. It's a hell of a risk to take, to enable an Islamic State under current world conditions. "Experts" often disagree - and gambling our future on them isn't my idea of good planning. And as I have said before I don't see any gain for the west or the people of Uzbekistan for them to swop one dictator for another one. I don't see why people here are supporting it either. It's not as if they will be free, just jumping from the frying pan into the fire. In my opinion there are better ways to spend our energy and time on other countries where freedom is a real desire and opportunity.

We're gambling either which way - leave Karimov in place and de facto support him means when Uzbekistan finally gets rid of him, the country will not look kindly on prior tacit western support for the guy.

In any case, I still believe that any right we have to influence events in Uzbekistan does not exceed the rights of the citizens of Uzbekistan themselves. You cannot say for certain that a change of government would be bad for Uzbekistan but you can say for certain that continuation of the current regime is bad.

Additionally - and I want this to be clear: I recognise hypocrisy in the US's handling of events in Uzbekistan last week. It was alright for people in the Ukraine/Georgia to demonstrate and demand regime change. It is not alright for the people in Uzbekistan. Freeing the Iraqi people from the shackles of a human rights abusing dictator was so important that the US and the UK went to war. But the same style of dictator is being allowed to continue unhindered in Uzbekistan. If the US is honestly and actively pursuing a campaign of freedom and democracy, they're supporting a lot of people for whom that idea is complete anaethema, not just Islam Karimov. I find the inconsistency revealing.

Hobbes

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.

It has already been pointed out earlier in the thread but just in case you missed it that quite a few countries are already democracy.

Here is a list of all countries for you to go and see for yourself...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

Lets look at just first few..
Indonesia -Democratic Republic, friend of the west.
Mauritania - Democracy, friend of the west.
Pakistan - Federal Republic, friend of the west (good friend with US)
Maldives - Dictatorship, friend of the west (needs it for tourism)
India - Democratic Republic, friend of the west (good friend with US)
Western Sahara - (Controlled by Morroco), Monarcy, friend of the west.
Bangladesh - Democracy, friend of the west.
Somalia - Unstable (although reconised president). Government friend of the west (rest unknown).
Egypt - Multi-party system (democractically elected), Friend of the west.
Turkey - Democratic Republic, Friend of the west.
Iran - Theocracy, Friend of the west (hostile with US although Dick Cheny did up until recently have a company he was previously CEO of run there through a loophole in US law).


So they are ordered in the number of muslims. Do you notice a pattern? I'll let you go down the list if you want and point out each country. I am sure you will find some that fit your profile but looking like the majority seem to be proving you wrong.

As for joining Iran, I'll let you do the list of whos hands in hands with Iran. You will be surprised to know that the EU+Russia does business with Iran. The US did too at one stage but then because of the brutal dictator they helped install that ended (except for Cheny).

I'm trying to figure out if your posts are trolling, ignorance or racism. Its hard to tell.

Btw, I suspect you have no clue about the Muslim religeon as well. I suggest you go read up on it.

Muslim extremists is like comparing to Christian extremists (who like to throw acid at people).

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

"Experts" often disagree - and gambling our future on them isn't my idea of good planning.

And why is "gambling our future" on your line of thinking safer?

And as I have said before I don't see any gain for the west or the people of Uzbekistan for them to swop one dictator for another one.

Firstly, it's not about what's to gain for us - the people have a right to chose how their own country is governed.
Secondly, you're working under the only assumption that any form of Islamic government is going to be totalitarian. One does not automatically lead to another.

I don't see why people here are supporting it either.

My reason, if you want to know, is that the people of these countries deserve the right to chose how they live. And, like it or not, that way may not be a carbon copy to how we live and think - this does not automatically give us the right to condemn or judge what they want to do as so many people seem to think.
Also, as I have said before and you refuse to accept, constant Western interference in so many countries has and is creating hostility towards this part of the world.
How would you react if another country tried to tell us how we should live our lives?

In my opinion there are better ways to spend our energy and time on other countries where freedom is a real desire and opportunity.

You should replace the word freedom with "my version of freedom".
Freedom implies choice, you do not want these people to have a choice.

In case you're in any doubt as to what the West is allowing go on in Uzbekistan, read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbek-Refugees.html
Specifically:

Atamatov said government troops shot at them in the morning, killing about a dozen people, and opened fire again about noon, killing a similar number. Two hours later, he said, they took aim from a truck and killed a 5-year-old boy who was running along a street. When his mother ran screaming toward her son, soldiers shot her, too, Atamatov said.

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

Pakistan - Federal Republic, friend of the west (good friend with US)

In fairness, Hobbes, don't you think that Pakistan is a Federal Republic in name only. In reality, its a dictatorship.

I haven't gone through the rest of the list, so I'm not going to go as far as to comment on its generaly validity.

What I would say is that I honestly don't believe there is any inviolable connection between religion, form of government, and the threat a nation poses to others.

Quantum has argued that Iraq was ok to liberate because the people didn't want a secular state, but one must ask how this was determined. It sure wasn't done by a free and fair polling of the wishes of the people under the reign of Saddam...but we can't take anything from after he was deposed as a retroactive justification, because it would then undermine the logic that we shouldn't intervene in other countries because of the risk. Conversely, Uzbekistan is a risk to liberate, because (despite evidence to the contrary), he believes (I assume) they do want a secular state....but again, I'm at a loss as to how one can fairly determine such things. Assuming that one can determine thiese things, then presumably there is evidence to show us where the difference lies - how we can know what the people who living under a regime where they are afraid to speak out can actually want.

Uzbekistan, at this point in time, looks to me like a lose-lose situation. The current Powers That Be in the nation are unacceptable from a humanitarian point of view. But they're keeping their unacceptability within their own borders. Quantum is correct in that there is the risk that instability / regime change in the nation could result in threats / unacceptabilities spreading outside their own borders.

But does this justify supporting the existing regime? I guess it depends on the nature of the support. There is a difficult line to draw between bullying a nation to change (e.g. North Korea), encouraging a nation to change (e.g. China), and supporting a nation whilst exhorting change (e.g. Uzbekistan as I see it). There are strong and valid arguments to be made for why these different stances can, should, and are being taken - I accept this. Humanitarianism isn't one of them, and - in my unenlightened position - has far too low a weighting in how these things are decided. Unfortunately, its all too often trotted out as the raison d'etre of foreign policy.

Ultimately, any nation, belief-structure, people, group, organisation, or other conglomeration which believes it has any sort of absolute right to act to further its own interests, putting them above the interests of those it acts on or against, has no moral high-ground to stand on when other groups do likewise against it.

This applies as equally to fundamentalist religious groups (Christian, Muslim, or other) as it does to nations (Western, Middle-Eastern, or other).

It also leads to an unbreakable cycle of international conflict. Everyone (or many/most people) feels wronged when their interests are attacked, but feels they have the right to protect their interests using whatever means necessary.

The hopelessly idealistic notion behind organisations such as the UN was based on a realisation of exactly that dichotomy. No-one can be unilaterally right to protect their own interests (whatever they are), whilst insisting that it is wrong for others to do likewise. Such beliefs are the underlying dynamic behind conflict, the rise-and-fall of nations, and - to a large extent - the perpetuation of suffering of the average Joe Soap around the planet.

I'm gonna stop now before I wander too far into idealism.

jc

Quantum

Hobbes wrote:

It has already been pointed out earlier in the thread but just in case you missed it that quite a few countries are already democracy.

::Snipped list::

So they are ordered in the number of muslims. Do you notice a pattern? I'll let you go down the list if you want and point out each country. I am sure you will find some that fit your profile but looking like the majority seem to be proving you wrong.

Hobbes - it seems you are overlooking the fundamental points I made in my posts about my opinion on this subject.

I am NOT opposed to muslim states. I never said any such thing.

As for joining Iran, I'll let you do the list of whos hands in hands with Iran. You will be surprised to know that the EU+Russia does business with Iran.

I imagine so. Doing business is not an issue with me, if it's to our advantage.

The US did too at one stage but then because of the brutal dictator they helped install that ended (except for Cheny).

Everyone did something at some stage. That means nothing. And if you are trying to convince me that iran is a nice cuddly country that isn't a danger to us then forget it. They promote inyernational terrorism, encourage hatred of the west and are about to get the bomb if we aren't careful. I believe they would use it.

I'm trying to figure out if your posts are trolling, ignorance or racism. Its hard to tell.

I won't respond to that - i understood that kind of comment was banned.

Btw, I suspect you have no clue about the Muslim religeon as well. I suggest you go read up on it.

I won't repond to that kind of coment either except to say that you clearly haven't even read my posts.

Muslim extremists is like comparing to Christian extremists (who like to throw acid at people).

I don't disagree, nor have I ever.

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

I am NOT opposed to muslim states. I never said any such thing.

You have, in nearly all your posts.
You're placing the precondition of some undefined ideal situation on "our support" (which otherwise is not going to be given) for the establishment of Islamic governments in Muslim countries, which seems to me to be just an easy way to allow yourself to make these crazy generalisations about Muslims and Muslim countries - such as none of them are democracies etc.

And if you are trying to convince me that iran is a nice cuddly country that isn't a danger to us then forget it. They promote inyernational terrorism, encourage hatred of the west and are about to get the bomb if we aren't careful. I believe they would use it.

What international terrorists do Iran promote exactly?

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

And why is "gambling our future" on your line of thinking safer?

For the simple reason that the current regime is not a threat to our safety, and indeed is cooperating in the war against internatinal terrorism.

Firstly, it's not about what's to gain for us - the people have a right to chose how their own country is governed.

In my opinon it is ALL about our own safety. If the result of a swap of one dictator to another is an increased risk to our lives and way of life, then my opinion is that we should not enable it.
Yes I DO believe they have a right to chose how they wish to run their country. I have said this repeatedly. But that doesn't mean we have to help them - when the result will/may be another dictatorship that will still repress it's people and threaten us.

Secondly, you're working under the only assumption that any form of Islamic government is going to be totalitarian. One does not automatically lead to another.

No I am not - I am working under the evidence as I see it that it's people appear to want to have an Islamic State. Note I never said I oppose any kind of Muslim government - only an Islamic State run according to fundamental Islamic religious law such as the Sharia law.

My reason, if you want to know, is that the people of these countries deserve the right to chose how they live. And, like it or not, that way may not be a carbon copy to how we live and think - this does not automatically give us the right to condemn or judge what they want to do as so many people seem to think.

I have agreed repeatedly that they have this right. But I don't accept for one minute that we cannot judge or comdemn their choice. We have every right to condemn or judge their choices. This is our fundamental right. We can hold any opinion we like because we live in a free country. The pity is that an Islamic State will not afford any such rigts to it's citizens unless they accord with fundamental Islamic Law.

Also, as I have said before and you refuse to accept, constant Western interference in so many countries has and is creating hostility towards this part of the world.

I agree. But we are not interfering in Uzbekistan other than normal international business, other than a base for the war against international terrorism which imho is a priority.

How would you react if another country tried to tell us how we should live our lives?

I'd say we'll make our own choice thank you. However they are entitled to their opinion. I believe in freedom of speech.

You should replace the word freedom with "my version of freedom".
Freedom implies choice, you do not want these people to have a choice.

Where did I ever say this ? Please present a reference to my post that ever said this ? If you find such a post I will apologise and withdraw it - otherwise please withdraw your assertion.

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

You have, in nearly all your posts.

This is what I have said:

I am opposed to the establishment of Islamic States which are essentially dictatorships and apply strict Islamic Law such as the Sharia Law and do not allow fundamental human rights, and which are more than likely to support extreme islamic terrorism.

I am not opposed to democratic Muslim States that support human rights and international law.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

I'm trying to figure out if your posts are trolling, ignorance or racism. Its hard to tell.

None of which of course you can accuse a poster here of,so when you do work out what you think of him I'd suggest, you don't post it .

In the mean time, if you are having a difficulty with a poster, I suggest you just ask them to chill*

Actually don't.
Instead let me or the other mods do that, clearly chillaxing is good when a poster gets hot under the collar.

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

Please present a reference to my post that ever said this ? If you find such a post I will apologise and withdraw it - otherwise please withdraw your assertion.

I am withdrawing nothing and to be honest this is going nowhere.
You obviously cannot tell the difference between fanatical terrorists and average Muslims.
You have stated repeatedly that you do not think we should support/allow (because you support backing autocratic rulers who will stop this happening on our behalf) people in these countries to form Islamic governments because they're a "threat".
If you are not trolling (which now I'm pretty sure that's all you're doing), then I don't think pointing out the errors again will serve any pupose. You are implying a great deal in your posts and then critising people who challenge what you're saying because you did not say it in those words exactly.

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

I am opposed to the establishment of Islamic States which are essentially dictatorships and apply strict Islamic Law such as the Sharia Law and do not allow fundamental human rights, and which are more than likely to support extreme islamic terrorism.

Sharia law is Islamic law, again just because a country implements it doesn't mean it's going to be a dictatorship. Can you stop with the generalisations.

Quantum

Hobbes wrote:

Pakistan - Federal Republic, friend of the west (good friend with US)

You MUST be joking right ? Federal Republic ? It's a Dictatorship !!

India - Democratic Republic, friend of the west (good friend with US)

India is not a Muslim State

Egypt - Multi-party system (democractically elected), Friend of the west.

Egypt does NOT have a multi party system and is a dictatorship.

Iran - Theocracy, Friend of the west (hostile with US although Dick Cheny did up until recently have a company he was previously CEO of run there through a loophole in US law).

You MUST be kidding. Friend of the west ? It is a typical Islamic State - undemocratic and hates the west.

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

Sharia law is Islamic law, again just because a country implements it doesn't mean it's going to be a dictatorship. Can you stop with the generalisations.

Can you point me to a State that is a democratic "Islamic State" basing it's laws on Islamic Law that has support for human rights ?

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

I am withdrawing nothing and to be honest this is going nowhere.
You obviously cannot tell the difference between fanatical terrorists and average Muslims.
You have stated repeatedly that you do not think we should support/allow (because you support backing autocratic rulers who will stop this happening on our behalf) people in these countries to form Islamic governments because they're a "threat".
If you are not trolling (which now I'm pretty sure that's all you're doing), then I don't think pointing out the errors again will serve any pupose. You are implying a great deal in your posts and then critising people who challenge what you're saying because you did not say it in those words exactly.

I'm not going to respond any more to your willful misrepresentations. You appear to have no tolerence for people who disagree with you and distort and mis-state my posts.
I won't stoop to your trolling accusations in case I get banned. As someone above suggests chill out !

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

Can you point me to a State that is a democratic "Islamic State" basing it's laws on Islamic Law that has support for human rights ?

I'm not saying that there is one (Malaysia would probably fit what you're looking for though), what I'm saying is it doesn't automatically mean it's going to be West hating, terrorist harbouring dictatorship. Which is what you are implying.

Quantum

Bonkey: an excellently thought out post.

Where I differ is in the following:

What I would say is that I honestly don't believe there is any inviolable connection between religion, form of government, and the threat a nation poses to others.

Fair point. However my view is not based on the inviolable nature of the link - but the likelihood.

But does this justify supporting the existing regime?

That is a tough one... but I don't actually believe we (the west) is supporting it. I don't believe havinga military base constitutes support.

Ultimately, any nation, belief-structure, people, group, organisation, or other conglomeration which believes it has any sort of absolute right to act to further its own interests, putting them above the interests of those it acts on or against, has no moral high-ground to stand on when other groups do likewise against it.

You are implying that I said this - when what I actually said was that we have a right to act in furtherence of protecting ourselves..... a very different thing. Otherwise I can accept that statement no problem.

The hopelessly idealistic notion behind organisations such as the UN was based on a realisation of exactly that dichotomy. No-one can be unilaterally right to protect their own interests (whatever they are), whilst insisting that it is wrong for others to do likewise. Such beliefs are the underlying dynamic behind conflict, the rise-and-fall of nations, and - to a large extent - the perpetuation of suffering of the average Joe Soap around the planet.

Very deep - but I'll go along with that..... just to confuse you !!!

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

I'm not saying that there is one (Malaysia would probably fit what you're looking for though), what I'm saying is it doesn't automatically mean it's going to be West hating, terrorist harbouring dictatorship. Which is what you are implying.

No - I have (yet again) said that I believe it is the likely result and I don't believe we should take that chance. Read about what is going in Malaysia now - pressure is building up for a change to Islamic Law and some of the nice little implications are the following : Punishments such as stoning and amputation for criminals and a ban on non-Muslims becoming prime minister : The death penalty for people who leave Islam. That's just for starters, wait until they start giving most of the power to the Religious and democracy dies like in Iran.

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

Read about what is going in Malaysia now - pressure is building up for a change to Islamic Law

The Malays already are ruled under Islamic law, it's not applied across the board (and probably never will) because of the non Muslim population there.
Also, 1 of the states there is controlled by the Islamic party (PAS), they were elected by the people.
What is your solution out of interest to all this? Would you favour something like colonising all countries (again) with a majority Muslim population, or installing puppet governments?

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

The Malays already are ruled under Islamic law, it's not applied across the board (and probably never will) because of the non Muslim population there.
Also, 2 of the states there are controlled by the Islamic party (PAS), they were elected by the people.
What is your solution out of interest to all this? Would you favour something like colonising all countries (again) with a majority Muslim population, or installing puppet governments?

I am perfectly open to contradiction on the facts here - but having just been reading about Malaysia today I cannot see anywhere another other than it is not actually under Islamic Law. The opposition are pressing for it but I don't believe it is actually in place.
Wikipedia Link

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

I am perfectly open to contradiction on the facts here - but having just been reading about Malaysia today I cannot see anywhere another other than it is not actually under Islamic Law. The opposition are pressing for it but I don't believe it is actually in place.
Wikipedia Link

I don't have anything links handy that explain how it's applied there exactly, one explaination is here

Sub-national law: Some religiously and ethnically diverse nations that used a federal governmental model-including Indonesia, Malaysia, and Nigeria-allow states or provinces the option of applying aspects of sharia. Because of its adaptability, this federal model for sharia "may well be an important model going forward," Lombardi says.

One example is polygamy is legal amongst Malays. They can't implement Sharia law in the country because of the ethnic/religious makeup, it just wouldn't work and the Malaysians themselves recognise that.

Hobbes

Quantum wrote:

You MUST be joking right ? Federal Republic ? It's a Dictatorship !!

Pakistan
Officially a federal republic, Pakistan has had a long history of alternating periods of electoral democracy and authoritarian military government...
On May 22, 2004, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group re-admitted Pakistan into the Commonwealth, formally acknowledging its progress in returning to democracy.

India is not a Muslim State

True, it has muslims in it.. come to think of it so does Ireland.

Egypt does NOT have a multi party system and is a dictatorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Egypt
The Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt declares Egypt to a ‘democratic and socialist republic’, operating under a ‘multiparty system’ semi-presidential system....
Under the 1980 amendments of the Egyptian Constitution, the President is elected for six years. As of 2005, President Mohamed Hosni Mubarak has been the President of the Republic since 14 October 1981 and is currently serving his last year of his fourth term.

You MUST be kidding. Friend of the west ? It is a typical Islamic State - undemocratic and hates the west.

I never said it was democratic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Foreign_Affairs
Since the end of the war (Iraq), Iran's new foreign policy (see introduction) has had a dramatic effect on its global standing.

Relations with the European Union have dramatically improved to the point where Iran is a major oil exporter and trading partner for countries such as Italy, France, and Germany.

China and India have also emerged as friends for Iran. Together, the three of them face similar challenges in the global economy as they industrialize and consequently find themselves aligned on a number of issues.

Iran maintains regular diplomatic and commercial relations with Russia and the former Soviet Republics.

I'm sure in your reality your right but I dragged those facts off wikipedia and cross referenced them with the country information. The stuff is there for you to go and look up if you don't believe me.

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

I don't have anything links handy that explain how it's applied there exactly, one explaination is here

Some Interesting points but I knew about them already. The issue was whether the country was under Islamic/Sharia law which it isn't. Elements don't make it so.

One example is polygamy is legal amongst Malays. They can't implement Sharia law in the country because of the ethnic/religious makeup, it just wouldn't work and the Malaysians themselves recognise that.

Easy to say but the stuff I was reading (nbot on the web) was saying that there is a real and growing pressure for it's introduction in spite of this and it could happen in the next three years.

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

Some Interesting points but I knew about them already. The issue was whether the country was under Islamic/Sharia law which it isn't. Elements don't make it so.

So, if it doesn't meet your exact requirements (or sterotypes) it's ignored. I see where you're going now.

Easy to say but the stuff I was reading (nbot on the web) was saying that there is a real and growing pressure for it's introduction in spite of this and it could happen in the next three years.

Considering that the opposistion there lost control of one of the states in the last election (one with a Muslim majority), I fail to see how this could happen in the next 3 years anyway.

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

So, if it doesn't meet your exact requirements (or sterotypes) it's ignored. I see where you're going now.

Yes. Exactly.

Either it is under Islamic Law or it isn't. It isn't.

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

Yes. Exactly.

Either it is under Islamic Law or it isn't. It isn't.

Everything isn't always black and white. Maybe you should consider that.

shltter

Quantum

Can I just point out that the west and particularly the US interfering in the domestic affairs of Islamic nations is the main cause for the existence and support for the international terrorist groups that you fear

far from securing our future and safety the interference in saudia arabia ,jordan ,Iraq,egypt, uzbekistan and countless more were unpopular and often brutal dictators are kept in power with the aid of the west particularly the US to brutalise their own population while securing the middle easts oil reserves for the west have led to acts such as september 11 and groups like al queda springing up

We are not securing our future or playing it safe we are creating a situation which will eventually come back and bite us on the ass and we will have no one to blame but ourselves

ressem

How about Yemen. Not a stable country, with seccessionist factions, nor one for tourists what with kidnapping foreigners for ransom. But we had a rocky startup with our State so shouldn't write the country off.

But it's a republic, uses Shari'a Law, elections judged fair.
Because Islamic law is the foundation on which the constitution is based there's not freedom to switch from Islam, nor to preach other religions, and the death penalty.

But they seem to be getting their act together wrt civil rights, just based on a quick browse for information.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/yemen/document.do?id=F71C226B2BDDD19D80256D7B00104266

Record set back by mass arrests following sept 11. But politically in a better state than Uzbekistan by all accounts, despite high levels of illiterecy and oil dependent economy.

Quantum

ressem wrote:

How about Yemen. Not a stable country, with seccessionist factions, nor one for tourists what with kidnapping foreigners for ransom. But we had a rocky startup with our State so shouldn't write the country off.

But it's a republic, uses Shari'a Law, elections judged fair.
Because Islamic law is the foundation on which the constitution is based there's not freedom to switch from Islam, nor to preach other religions, and the death penalty.

But they seem to be getting their act together wrt civil rights, just based on a quick browse for information.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/yemen/document.do?id=F71C226B2BDDD19D80256D7B00104266

Record set back by mass arrests following sept 11. But politically in a better state than Uzbekistan by all accounts, despite high levels of illiterecy and oil dependent economy.

Yemen ?

Non muslims cannot preach their faith, they cannot hold office. Muslims cannot change religion - the penalty is death.


Then have a look at the BBC Web Site

"Yemen has gained a reputation as a haven for Islamic miltants" including the attack on the USS Cole.

"Ali Abdallah Saleh - Yemen's longest-serving leader in recent times - won the country's first-ever direct presidential elections in 1999 with more than 96% of the vote. But the main opposition party, which was barred from fielding a candidate, described the poll as a sham."

"The Ministry of Information controls all broadcasting through the Public Corporation for Radio and Television. It controls most printing presses and funds some newspapers. The press is strictly controlled and newspapers have often been prosecuted over political articles."

ressem

"Muslims cannot change religion - the penalty is death. "

Non Muslims can't preach but can practice their faith. They have to get permission to set up churches.

They're forbidden from holding political office.

That's the Koran interpretation commonly implemented into Islamic States.
Don't like it, but as you said earlier, it's their call.

An alternate view of the presidential election was
http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/pol/pres99/election99.htm

Remind you of our own recently? (summary: you need 10% parlimentary support to propose candidate, that particular party had boycotted 1997 election, candidate wasn't able to muster support from other parties)

Original issue was with

They are entitled to their views and to form their Islamic State. But I believe that we shouldn't help them and create another enemy for us in the west.

Or

But I have said that we should not enable or support them change from one dictatorship to another which will be far more dangerous to us and our way of life.

A reputation as a haven for Islamic terrorists. yes. It has been, but listed in the amnesty report are reports of forced export of foreigners etc. Whether it's a showpiece or a genuine effort? I'm only guessing that it's real with the country just emerging from war, I doubt that the state wants them any more than we do.
As the place becomes more stable, IMO it isn't "another enemy for us". Because the government is not persecuting their own citizens, and the west ain't bothering them (trades with China and SA). Not nearly as dangerous as S.Arabia. Of course, never been, and I could be just an idealist dumbass.

Bringing back to OT, given that Uzbekistan is populated with followers of a more moderate form of Islam, and under commmunism women had a more equal say, and the better standard of literacy and education, is there really no chance of their mostly muslim population forming a decent representitive state, justifying either us or the US state dept shutting up while protestors are shot (with all the PR opportunities it presents to the militant fundamentalists).