US backed Uzbekistan slaughters 200 protestors

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I pinpointed that Uzbekistan was in your sphere of influence, instead of Russia's.

except its not. Uzbekistan has been in Russias sphere of influence since 1991. When we needed a base there to support our invasion of Afghanistan,(an invasion which was supported by all our allies, including France) we actually asked Russia for their consent, IIRC. Uzbekistan continues to have much higher trade with Russia than the US, IIUC. yes, we give them, aid, essentially rent for the base. We have publicly expressed discontent with their humans rights practices, which is more than Russia has ever done.

As for the internal situation in Uzbek, its complex. Yeah, Karimov is a dictator. But there really is a terrorist group, the IMU (Islamic movement of Uzbekistan) that is aligned with Al Qaeeda. The crowds in the Uzbek protests seem to have been violent. I dont think we have the info yet to know for sure which side started the violence, or if the protestors were supportive of AQ linked groups or not.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
We have publicly expressed discontent with their humans rights practices, which is more than Russia has ever done.

That's a good thing Do you think the current events will re-define your relations with Uzbekistan?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Sift my flour?

Because flour settles and compresses, so you need to sift it to help it regain volume. Flour should properly be measured by wieght, but measuring by volume is a convention. If you don't have a sifter, fluff the flour up with a knife, stirring the flour and lifting it up.

Also, when measuring flour, you want a level cup, so scrape the excess off the top with that knife.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

That's a good thing Do you think the current events will re-define your relations with Uzbekistan?

In the last white house statement ive heard, the spokesman called for restraint by both sides, and said change in Uzbekistan should happen peacefully, not by violence.

There are many factors making this difficult for US policy makers. On the one hand, Karimov is an embarrasment, especially with democracy promotion a big part of US strategy, and with a "hearts and minds" struggle in the muslim world. On the other hand, Afghanistan is landlocked, Pakistan is unreliable, so we need the access via Uzbekistan. Also we DONT know for sure that the protestors/rioters werent connected to IMU/AQ. Also, if it looked like we supported regime change by VIOLENCE in a former Soviet republic, that would very much aggravate our relations with Russia, and the unreformed central asian states - Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, etc. I havent seen the Department of State response, but I suspect they will be "walking a tight rope".

[lord of the mark]

fridays dept of State briefing

"QUESTION: Uzbekistan and the EU seem to have blamed the Government of Uzbekistan for the violence. Would that be the view of the U.S. Government, too?


MR. BOUCHER: We have been looking at this situation. We have been following it closely. I would note that while we have been very consistently critical of the human rights situation in Uzbekistan, we are very concerned about the outbreak of violence in Adijan, in particularly the escape of prisoners, including possibly members of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, an organization we consider a terrorist organization.


I think at this point we're looking to all the parties involved to exercise restraint, avoid any unnecessary loss of life. But we are continuing to follow the situation closely. Our primary concern has to be the situation of Americans. We have -- our Embassy has checked on Peace Corps volunteer and -- Peace Corps volunteers and some of the other Americans who are in that area, and they are safe. They've reached out through the Warden system to contact Americans and encourage all Americans to stay inside and avoid the protests. I'd note as well that Uzbekistan's Government has provided increased protection for our diplomatic facilities.


QUESTION: New subject?


QUESTION: Sir, can I just follow up on that?


MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.


QUESTION: I mean, but the European Union is blaming the government for this violence and I just wanted --


MR. BOUCHER: I haven't seen the European Union's statement. Certainly the outbreak of violence at this point, I think, is something we all regret and we want to see both sides try to do what they can to calm things down.


QUESTION: Do you think you've been sufficiently critical of Uzbekistan on it's -- on rule of law --


MR. BOUCHER: We've been very -- read our Human Rights Report. It came out two months ago. We've been very clear about the human rights situation there. We've been very factual about it. But, unfortunately, the facts are not pretty.


QUESTION: Regardless of what the European Union said about this, the reports are that Uzbek troops opened fire on a square in this town. Do you think that's a good idea? Do you think that is excessive violence?


MR. BOUCHER: We don't think anybody should be using violence. We think everybody should be using -- whatever -- that everybody should be using restraint and doing whatever they can to avoid violence in this kind of situation, but I'm not going to comment on the latest report. You know, the one before that had other people doing other things. The one before that had criminals being released from a prison, including possible terrorists. You know, this has been a whole series of violent events and both sides need to do what they can to tamp down the violence and deal with these problems peacefully.


QUESTION: Have you conveyed that view directly to President Karimov or to other members of the --


MR. BOUCHER: I don't know who exactly I talked to, but certainly our Embassy is conveying that view, yes.


QUESTION: Do you think, Richard, those people, or anyone for that matter, in Uzbekistan has the right to call for the President's resignation?


MR. BOUCHER: We believe that everywhere people have the right to express their grievances and that they should be able to do that, but that they should do that peacefully and that grievances should be perceived -- pursued through a peaceful process.


QUESTION: And if I can try, sort of, the same question in another way, do you think that there is a response to --


MR. BOUCHER: I'll give you the same answer.


(Laughter.)


QUESTION: Well, that's -- we'll see. Do you think the government's response to what has happened was appropriate?


MR. BOUCHER: Again, we think everybody should be doing everything they can to avoid violence, to calm down the situation and to deal with these differences peacefully. "

[Spiffor]

Indeed, it shows that the State Department is walking a fine line. If the US diplomacy seriously supported Karimov in this, the spinmaster would much more try to express that the rebels are evil terrorists.

[lord of the mark]

Flash BBC

US hardens stance on Uzbekistan

The US says it is "deeply disturbed" by reports that troops in Uzbekistan fired on unarmed civilians during a protest in the east of the country.
It called on the Uzbek government to allow the International Red Cross full access to the part of the country affected by recent protests.

Local sources say several hundred people died when troops shot at protesters in Andijan on Friday.

Uzbek President Islam Karimov blamed the unrest on Islamic extremists.

US state department spokesman Richard Boucher said that stability in Uzbekistan depended on the government addressing human rights issues and the rule of law.

However, he also condemned violent protesters who had stormed government buildings.

Human rights organisations and a leading US Republican Congressman, Dana Rohrabacher, have called on the Bush administration to condemn Mr Karimov.

[Ecthy]

Corn syrup is not a particularly typical ingredient over here. Not sure if I can get it, and if then probably at relatively high expense. What compares to corn syrup? Maple syrup? Maze flour? Piano man?

[lord of the mark]

increasingly American conservatives are noting that Karimov not only restricts human rights, but that he restricts trade and private business. Neo-con mag The Weekly Standard had a negative article about Karimov. Increasing hints the admin is getting ready to dump this guy. Though its still not clear who the opposition consists of.

[Ecthy]

Cookies finished now, very tasty

[chequita guevara]

Glad to help, btw, clear out your PMs. So, did you lady friend like them? Did you tell her an American communist helped you?

[lord of the mark]

belgravia dispatch, on the situation in Uzbekistan:

"Bush's Long Shadow: In Uzbekistan?

We've all now heard of the despicable massacre of hundreds in the town of Andijon:

Uzbekistan acknowledged Tuesday that its crackdown last week on an antigovernment demonstration and a prison break had been far more violent than it previously described, saying 169 people had been killed, including 32 government troops.
President Islam A. Karimov said Saturday that only 10 soldiers and a larger but unspecified number of "rebels" had been killed.

Despite the big increase in the casualty figures, announced at a news conference in Tashkent by Mr. Karimov and Prosecutor General Rashid Kadyrov, the government's total still was far below the estimates of survivors and witnesses, who have put the death toll in the hundreds.

One opposition party, for example, said Tuesday that it had compiled a list of 745 dead.

While Mr. Karimov and Mr. Kadyrov offered a more complete picture of the disorder than before, they also insisted that government troops had not deliberately fired on or killed any civilians. Their assertion contradicted the accounts of many survivors, who have said troops and armored vehicles rushed a public square in the northeastern city of Andijon and fired indiscriminately.


As soon as I heard about this story, after my initial shock at the bloodshed, I next thought that some on the left would grab on it to point out Washington's hypocrisy in being, shall we say, selective in picking its democratization venues. Jonathan Freedland, writing in the Guardian, certainly doesn't let us down on this score:

When crowds demonstrated in Lebanon, Ukraine and Georgia, the Americans welcomed it as "people power". But the brave stand in Uzbekistan brought a different response. Washington called for "restraint" from both sides, as if the unarmed civilians were just as guilty as those shooting at them. In the past couple of days, the tune has changed slightly. Now the state department wants Tashkent to "institute real reforms" and address its "human rights problems". It is at least possible that Washington may soon decide Karimov has become an embarrassment and that he should be replaced by a new, friendlier face - but one just as reliable. Less of a sonofa*****, but still ours.
Sonofa*****ism has always been an awkward business, even in Roosevelt's day; it hardly squares with America's image of itself as a beacon in a dark world. But the contradiction - some would call it hypocrisy - is all the greater now. For this is the Bush era, and the Bush doctrine is all about spreading democracy and "the untamed fire of freedom" to the furthest corner of the globe. If that's the rhetoric, then it's hard to reconcile with a reality that involves funneling cash to a man who boils his enemies.


It's a predictable narrative, of course, and I want to point out a few issues with Freeland's thesis. Before I do that, however, let me remind readers that I too have called for stronger U.S. democracy advocacy vis-a-vis Uzbekistan in the past.

This said, here are my issues with the Guardian piece:

1) The U.S. has supported democracy initiatives throughout the post 9/11 period in Uzbekistan--not solely focusing on security cooperation;

2) For instance, note the State Department awarded its 2004 Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award to an individual active in just these types of efforts:

Michael Goldman of Embassy Tashkent was selected as winner of this year's award for exceptional achievement in the field of human rights and democracy. Mr. Goldman was selected from an impressive group of nine candidates nominated by their Ambassadors in a year in which issues of democracy and human rights moved even further to the forefront of the foreign policy process.
In the challenging human rights environment of Uzbekistan, Michael Goldman succeeded in advancing the U.S. human rights agenda. Ambassador Purnell wrote: "the fact that there has been progress at all is a testament to Mike’s energy, creativity and diplomatic skills." Michael’s cables on wide-ranging abuses, arbitrary arrests, renewed harassment of the opposition and imprisonment of political and religious leaders led to the Secretary’s determination in July that Uzbekistan had not made sufficient progress in meeting its obligations under the 2002 Strategic Partnership Declaration. His reporting on female members of the banned Party of Islamic Liberation and other developments provided the United States with insights into the complexity of the Government of Uzbekistan’s handling of democratic issues. Mike facilitated a series of lunches between Freedom House’s director and the Ministry of Internal Affairs that led to an unprecedented roundtable on torture between law enforcement officials and human rights advocates. His efforts also led to the release of independent journalist Ruslan Sharipov, and he is currently working on the establishment of an inter-ministerial investigative commission on human rights.


3) Nor was the U.S. democracy advocacy in Uzbekistan solely limited to relatively low ranking diplomats at the Embassy in Tashkent. The Acting Assistant Secretary for Human Rights, for instance, has even visited the city that was the site of the slaughter:

In promoting human rights, the United States has sought to engage with Uzbekistan on two levels. On the first level, the United States maintains a vigorous bilateral dialogue with the Uzbek Government on a host of issues, from democratization to religious tolerance, and from legal and penitentiary reform to advocacy on behalf of specific prisoners of conscience. Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) Michael Kozak visited Uzbekistan in November, meeting with officials in Tashkent, Namangan and Andijon to highlight ongoing U.S. concerns about human rights and democracy. Human rights and democracy also featured prominently in the July visit of Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (EUR) Beth Jones and the November visit of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for EUR Laura Kennedy. The Ambassador and his staff treated the promotion of human rights and democracy as a major U.S. priority in Uzbekistan and incorporated these goals in discussions with officials at all levels of government. In Washington, then-Assistant Secretary for DRL Lorne Craner and Assistant Secretary for EUR Beth Jones twice provided Congressional testimony on U.S. efforts to engage the Government of Uzbekistan on U.S. concerns about human rights and democracy.
The second level of the U.S. strategy focuses on the development of civil society. Working with NGOs and individual Uzbeks, the United States seeks to expand the ability of local organizations to affect positive change in society, to develop the foundations of a free press, and to create space for human rights activism and independent political expression. The United States places particular value on exchanges and training, in order to provide the next generation of Uzbek citizens with the tools necessary to move their country’s politics and society out of the shadow of its Soviet past. All programs operated by the Open Society Institute (OSI) were forced to close when the Uzbek Ministry of Justice (MOJ) refused to reregister OSI, effectively shutting it down. In February, the Government issued a decree making it more difficult for foreign entities to fund the activities of their local NGO partners. The United States has devoted considerable attention to this issue and is working to ensure that local organizations are able to continue their work. [emphasis added]


4) Finally, at least for tonight, there is this tantalizingly interesting story floating about the American-expatriate-in-Russia-blogosphere . Can it really be that Karimov himself, aside from blaming Islamist agitators for the carnage, has actually blamed Bush too for causing some of the rumblings of domestic discontent?

Karimov thinks that the sources of this operation are outside of the country, and that there are forces which have an interest in destabilizing the situation in Uzbekistan. These are not only Hizb ut Tahrir, but the United States as well. Karimov made it clear that the "leader of a large superpower, who just completed a tour of the CIS nations" is inclined to forcibly implant democracy in the post-Soviet space..
Hmmm. I wonder who the "leader of a large superpower [ ed. note: don't miss the plausible Karimovian phraseology that appears crafted to not offend the, er, 'other' superpowers, that is China and Russia] who just completed a tour of the CIS nations" is?

Regular readers may recall that I speculated things like the Tbilisi stopover might have wider regional implications. Frankly, I don't think it's too much of a stretch at all to assume some of the increased civil protest in the air in Uzbekistan is a result of Bush's forward democratization strategy including his high profile visits to places like Georgia. All this said, of course, we've had a massacre of perhaps upwards of 700 individuals in Uzbekistan this past week. Business as usual now, and this includes sending in Assistant Secretaries to rap knuckles, would not be good enough. It would be too perilously close to Freeland's "sonafa*****ism." Which means we need to, likely in tandem with Jack Straw, force Karimov to allow for a full unfettered investigation of the killings (with international observers), free movement of journalists, and more. No, immediate regime change isn't an option. But should a judicious investigation show that command authorization allowed for the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians--a fundamental reappraisal of our Uzbek policy will certainly be required. To be a bit more blunt, Condi will have to ratchet up the pressure more than this:

Nobody is asking any government to deal with terrorists," she said Tuesday evening at a news conference in Washington. "That's not the issue. The issue, though, is that it is a society that needs openness, it needs to reform, and again, I think if you look at the record, we have raised that with the government of Karimov for quite some time."
That's true, but if the massacre that occurred looks to have been a purposeful Uzbek Tiananmen-style massacre, we're going to have to be quite a bit more forceful in our criticisms than this. Developing, as they say.

[Ecthy]

The lady friend will get them in 1 hour and 10 minutes