US & Russia block NATO probe into Uzbek Massacre

[Az]

(wasn't that your argument? )

only if you consider bunch of people perfoming a coup d'etat as a legitimate democratic process.

In any case, what I was getting at is that Islamism is probably something we'll just have to live with for a time, if we want some of these places to end up as free societies. Repressive secular dictatorships are just fueling the movements.

I certainly disagree. It's defeatist thinking. like it'sa binary choice. The truth is that islamism will destroy all parts of society that are free. in secular dictatorships that are around now, the minds of the people remain free, and the amound of reform that will have to be done will be relatively small. I shudder at the amount of effort and change people in places like sudan, SA, and Iran
(esp. rural, since the memory of a secular life is still strong in Iran ) will have to pass through.

[curtsibling]

This development does not surprise me.

But how supporters of politicians can rationalise such disgusting
hypocrisy from our moral preaching leaders is hilarious.

I hate terrorists, but I hate liars and double dealers even more.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ramo
Exactly how did we moderate Karimov? Seems like he's only gotten worse in the past four years (hence the Andijan killings). Giving a dictator weapons and training ain't the same thing as moderating him.

The real lesson here is to support democracy, rather than coddle ruthless dictators.

We are legitimizing the regime, giving it political and military support. We are partially responsible for the regime's atrocities.

The US doesn't give him weapons because like all former Soviet Republics the country is swimming in old Soviet Weapons and everyone is already trained to use them. The Us would train them in counter insurgency since the country is next to Afghanistan and suffers from Islamists, we'd train them in drug control and eradication since they're a major heroine route to Europe, and things like taking part in the "Partnership for Peace" which was Clinton's halfway house for old eastern block powers which want to join NATO but who aren't there yet because they don't meet the requirements.

I'm sure we've give morel aid especially after 9/11 when we needed Uzbekistan as a jumping off point to Afghanistan and the US does maintain one old Soviet military base which the Soviets used to supply their Afghan forces during the 1979-1987 war. It was designed specifically to support Soviet operations in Afghanistan so it works well with NATO's operations in Afghanistan.

[lord of the mark]

of course we trained security forces in Uzbekistan - theres a certain group there called the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which IS an AQ affiliate, and whose victory would NOT be a happy occasion for the people of Uzbekistan. There may well be moderate Islamists in Uzbek, and Karimov may be deliberated conflating the moderates with the terrorists, but the terrorists are quite real. And when we first got involved with Karimov, in 2001, a certain unfortunate event had just happened here, and we badly needed bases on the way to Afghanistan. The real world is what it is, and US power is NOT infinite.

Now that said, we probably need Karimov LESS now, given the improvements in Afghanistan. And Andijon was rather more blatant than anything hes done before that Im aware of. So we SHOULD show concern now, and we ARE doing so - despite a narrow minded focus by DoD on its own logistical needs. (Indeed, I saw a headline indicating Rice has made new statements condemning events in Egypt, which is even more dramatic) So I hardly think we're coddling Karimov - we did what was necessary in 2001 and 2002, and we're finally realizing what we need to do now.

And of course its absurd to say that the US is in anyway implicated in the crushing of the "democratic left" in central asia - is the democratic opposition even "leftist" in Central Asia? The same dictators are in power there who have been in power since 1991, for the most part, and some of those guys were in power as Soviet apparatchiks even BEFORE 1991. Its a mistake to be so hung up on, say, US misdeeds in Iran in 1954 as to try to explain everything that happens through that prism.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
In any case, what I was getting at is that Islamism is probably something we'll just have to live with for a time, if we want some of these places to end up as free societies. Repressive secular dictatorships are just fueling the movements.

theres islamism, and islamism, and islamism. Theres violent, tyrannical, terrorist ultra salafist movements. There are movements like that in Turkey, which seem to aspire to be to Islam, what Christian Democracy in western Europe was to Catholocism, and there are groups that are somewhere in between. Its not clear to me who all the players are in Uzbekistan. We have to support virtually ANY Uzbek regime against terrorists. Genuine Islamist democrats should have the same political rights as any other group - its not for us to decide that secularism is the only legitimate approach to democratic politics. As for the groups like the Egyptian Islamic Brotherhood, which are Salafist, and seem to hold beliefs incompatible with democracy, but which are not overtly violent, thats a more difficult policy conundrum.

[Serb]

Excuse me people,
Are you all right?
Karimov did ONCE what Americans are doing in Iraq on daily basis - he used force agaist bunch of his own, HIS OWN, not foreign fundamentalists.
And you are wondering why US and Russia backed him? It's God damn obvious, becuase if he'll quit, there will be another Afghanistan. Neither US, nor Russia, (especially Russia) want this alternative.
You just have no idea WTF Uzbekistan is. It's a ****ing powder keg.

[Ramo]

I certainly disagree. It's defeatist thinking. like it'sa binary choice. The truth is that islamism will destroy all parts of society that are free. in secular dictatorships that are around now, the minds of the people remain free, and the amound of reform that will have to be done will be relatively small. I shudder at the amount of effort and change people in places like sudan, SA, and Iran
(esp. rural, since the memory of a secular life is still strong in Iran ) will have to pass through.

I'm not saying it's a binary choice, but that it's probably the case in a large number of these states. I think you're the defeatist here, by saying that we absolutely must prop up a brutal secular dictatorship like Uzbekistan to exclude the possibility of Islamism entirely. I think that's a extremely poor long term strategy and morally repugnant.

And I do consider Iran to be considerably better off than some of our allies.

The US doesn't give him weapons because like all former Soviet Republics the country is swimming in old Soviet Weapons and everyone is already trained to use them. The Us would train them in counter insurgency since the country is next to Afghanistan and suffers from Islamists, we'd train them in drug control and eradication since they're a major heroine route to Europe, and things like taking part in the "Partnership for Peace" which was Clinton's halfway house for old eastern block powers which want to join NATO but who aren't there yet because they don't meet the requirements.

I'm sure we've give morel aid especially after 9/11 when we needed Uzbekistan as a jumping off point to Afghanistan and the US does maintain one old Soviet military base which the Soviets used to supply their Afghan forces during the 1979-1987 war. It was designed specifically to support Soviet operations in Afghanistan so it works well with NATO's operations in Afghanistan.

My mistake on the weapons, but again, the point is that your claim that our support for Karimov during the past four years has moderated the regime has not been substantiated.

of course we trained security forces in Uzbekistan - theres a certain group there called the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which IS an AQ affiliate, and whose victory would NOT be a happy occasion for the people of Uzbekistan. There may well be moderate Islamists in Uzbek, and Karimov may be deliberated conflating the moderates with the terrorists, but the terrorists are quite real. And when we first got involved with Karimov, in 2001, a certain unfortunate event had just happened here, and we badly needed bases on the way to Afghanistan. The real world is what it is, and US power is NOT infinite.

I find it strange that you are making this argument that all human rights concerns must be sacrificed to the War Against Terror^TM, given that you've been such an advocate of invading Iraq - which I'm sure that you'll agree has been sapping a far larger portion of our certainly finite powers than our operations in Afghanistan. And I'll remind you that the entire reason that certain unfortunate event happened is that we've been seen as propping up secular autocracies in the Islamic world; our support of Uzbeks, Tunisians, etc. ain't winning us any friends.

And of course its absurd to say that the US is in anyway implicated in the crushing of the "democratic left" in central asia

I was making a general point about Islamism, and forgot about the precise topic. My bad.

theres islamism, and islamism, and islamism. Theres violent, tyrannical, terrorist ultra salafist movements. There are movements like that in Turkey, which seem to aspire to be to Islam, what Christian Democracy in western Europe was to Catholocism, and there are groups that are somewhere in between. Its not clear to me who all the players are in Uzbekistan. We have to support virtually ANY Uzbek regime against terrorists.

I think that Andijon is a pretty good rebuttal to this argument.

I'm not sure how extremist a post-Karimov gov't would be, but I do know that the continual existence of this gov't is only making that answer worse.

Should we have supported Saddam's gov't? It's not like he didn't have some fairly nasty opposition.

(Indeed, I saw a headline indicating Rice has made new statements condemning events in Egypt, which is even more dramatic) So I hardly think we're coddling Karimov - we did what was necessary in 2001 and 2002, and we're finally realizing what we need to do now.

I'm sorry, I don't see what we are doing in either Egypt or Uzbekistan. Substantially. For instance, are we witholding military aid until they reform?

As for Rice's dramatic statements, I don't have much hope. Last time Dear Leader demanded democracy in Egypt, he was pacified by the vaguest promises of reforms (which to absolutely no one's suprise excluding some gullible Republicans, didn't pan out).

Karimov did ONCE what Americans are doing in Iraq on daily basis - he used force agaist bunch of his own, HIS OWN, not foreign fundamentalists.

Yes, we massacre hundreds of unarmed protestors everyday.

There's nothing like a Serb post to get me to defend the US gov't.

[lord of the mark]

of course we trained security forces in Uzbekistan - theres a certain group there called the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which IS an AQ affiliate, and whose victory would NOT be a happy occasion for the people of Uzbekistan. There may well be moderate Islamists in Uzbek, and Karimov may be deliberated conflating the moderates with the terrorists, but the terrorists are quite real. And when we first got involved with Karimov, in 2001, a certain unfortunate event had just happened here, and we badly needed bases on the way to Afghanistan. The real world is what it is, and US power is NOT infinite.

I find it strange that you are making this argument that all human rights concerns must be sacrificed to the War Against Terror^TM

I said no such thing. I did say that it made sense to give arms to Uzbekistan security forces, when the Uzbek govt faced assault from the IMU, and when we needed access to Afghanistan. That is a far cry from saying ALL human rights concerns must be sacrified. There are constant trade offs and they are NOT easy. US power is considerable, and we can and should wield it for positive change, both for its own sake and for our own long range interests. Its nonetheless not unlimited.


As for Iraq, in the event that things go well in Iraq, we MAY actually establish a democracy there. Do you really think that if we cut our ties to Karimov that would mean democracy in Uzbekistan? He managed just fine with Russian training before, and the Chinese would be happy to help him too, IM sure. Now it STILL might be a good idea to wash our hands of him - it would help in the hearts and minds struggle in the muslim world, perhaps. But lets not equate it to actually building a democracy.

And I'll remind you that the entire reason that certain unfortunate event happened is that we've been seen as propping up secular autocracies in the Islamic world; our support of Uzbeks, Tunisians, etc. ain't winning us any friends.

Which is why I have supported distancing ourselves from Karimov NOW, in particular insisting on an outside investigation of the events in Andijon. I was merely explaining that past training to Uzbek security forces did NOT mean that we had no concern of human rights. Ramo, you are beginning to descend in the "with me or against me" rhetoric that disgraces both sides of this argument.

And of course its absurd to say that the US is in anyway implicated in the crushing of the "democratic left" in central asia

I was making a general point about Islamism, and forgot about the precise topic. My bad.


Correction accepted. You are usually an informative and insightful poster - insert something about "high expectations"

theres islamism, and islamism, and islamism. Theres violent, tyrannical, terrorist ultra salafist movements. There are movements like that in Turkey, which seem to aspire to be to Islam, what Christian Democracy in western Europe was to Catholocism, and there are groups that are somewhere in between. Its not clear to me who all the players are in Uzbekistan. We have to support virtually ANY Uzbek regime against terrorists.

I think that Andijon is a pretty good rebuttal to this argument.

I'm not sure how extremist a post-Karimov gov't would be, but I do know that the continual existence of this gov't is only making that answer worse.

Should we have supported Saddam's gov't? It's not like he didn't have some fairly nasty opposition.

Now i must apologize for my wording. I did NOT mean that we should provide general support to the Uzbek govt AS LONG AS they are also fighting terrorists. If we found AQ plans for an attack in Damascus, I think it would be right to share that with Assad, though we dont generally support his govt. TO the extent that Karimov is threatened by terrorists(and I think the IMU is rather more of a real threat than any MB in Syria is - and im not sure what nasties you mean in regard to Iraq) , we should try to help counter that threat. At the same time we SHOULD push for democratic change, as a yet more effective counter to that threat.

(Indeed, I saw a headline indicating Rice has made new statements condemning events in Egypt, which is even more dramatic) So I hardly think we're coddling Karimov - we did what was necessary in 2001 and 2002, and we're finally realizing what we need to do now.

I'm sorry, I don't see what we are doing in either Egypt or Uzbekistan. Substantially. For instance, are we witholding military aid until they reform?

To do that in Egypt now, with the Israeli pullout from Gaza in two months, would be folly of the highest order. Nonetheless Rice said even more things in Cairo today. All words, you may, say, but its farther than any US admin has gone on Egypt since Egypt changed sides under Sadat. And egypts proposed election, is a big improvement. Yes, they can exclude candidates (like in Iran) but UNLIKE in Iran, this is for a Presidency that actually wields dominant power in the state.

As for Rice's dramatic statements, I don't have much hope. Last time Dear Leader demanded democracy in Egypt, he was pacified by the vaguest promises of reforms (which to absolutely no one's suprise excluding some gullible Republicans, didn't pan out).

See above. The changes in Egypt are important. Id like to see stronger rhetoric for futher changes, but this is much more than most expected.

[Ramo]

lotm, you're conflating two very different things: providing intelligence on terrorist acts, and providing hundreds of millions of dollars in funds for the equipping and training of a regime's security forces. Now, do you think that it's a good idea to give the Revolutionary Guard training and hundreds of millions of dollars to deal with, say, the MEK? You have to ask what the greater problem is. From the State Department:

Activities
The IMU in recent years has participated in attacks on US and Coalition soldiers in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and plotted attacks on US diplomatic facilities in Central Asia.

In November 2004, the IMU was blamed for an explosion in the southern Kyrgyzstani city of Osh that killed one police officer and one terrorist. In May 2003, Kyrgyzstani security forces disrupted an IMU cell that was seeking to bomb the US Embassy and a nearby hotel in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. The IMU was also responsible for explosions in Bishkek in December 2002 and Osh in May 2003 that killed eight people. The IMU primarily targeted Uzbekistani interests before October 2001 and is believed to have been responsible for five car bombs in Tashkent in February 1999. IMU militants also took foreigners hostage in 1999 and 2000, including four US citizens who were mountain climbing in August 2000 and four Japanese geologists and eight Kyrgyzstani soldiers in August 1999.

Strength
Probably fewer than 500.

http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/imu.htm

So, the group's terrorist activities have killed 9 people in the past four years (excluding IMU themselves).

That pales in comparison to Andijon alone, much less all the other **** that Karimov's security forces have been involved in. In sheer magnitude of threat to liberty, the Uzbek state is far more dangerous.

Regarding Egypt's "important" changes, there is no significant political opposition to Mubarak outside of the Muslim Brotherhood. Suprise, suprise, the Mubarak-controlled Parliament excluded them from the elections. Presidential elections that exclude the MB are practically meaningless. You say that these are broader elections than Iran's Presidential elections, but Iran has a far more healthy range of political debate, and many Reformists are able to run (Moin, for instance, was forced back on the ballot). And one should note that Mubarak is doing this because this is pretty much the least that he can do, after stirring up resentment by jailing a major rival. This is not some magnanimous gesture for democracy on behalf of Dear Leader's request, but a cynical method of underming opposition to his regime.

As for the idea that one can't reduce our billions in handouts to Mubarak due to Gaza, something is always happening in the region. That's a poor excuse to sit on asses. Do you honestly think that our $1.3 billion dollars in military aid and $.8 billion in economic aid can't be used as a bludgeon for reform? That's absurd. You're falling into this single-minded focus of terrorism above all again (speaking of which, I could certainly do without their "help" in questioning terror suspects).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
lotm, you're conflating two very different things: providing intelligence on terrorist acts, and providing hundreds of millions of dollars in funds for the equipping and training of a regime's security forces. Now, do you think that it's a good idea to give the Revolutionary Guard training and hundreds of millions of dollars to deal with, say, the MEK? You have to ask what the greater problem is. From the State Department:

Activities
The IMU in recent years has participated in attacks on US and Coalition soldiers in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and plotted attacks on US diplomatic facilities in Central Asia.

In November 2004, the IMU was blamed for an explosion in the southern Kyrgyzstani city of Osh that killed one police officer and one terrorist. In May 2003, Kyrgyzstani security forces disrupted an IMU cell that was seeking to bomb the US Embassy and a nearby hotel in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. The IMU was also responsible for explosions in Bishkek in December 2002 and Osh in May 2003 that killed eight people. The IMU primarily targeted Uzbekistani interests before October 2001 and is believed to have been responsible for five car bombs in Tashkent in February 1999. IMU militants also took foreigners hostage in 1999 and 2000, including four US citizens who were mountain climbing in August 2000 and four Japanese geologists and eight Kyrgyzstani soldiers in August 1999.

Strength
Probably fewer than 500.

http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/imu.htm

So, the group's terrorist activities have killed 9 people in the past four years (excluding IMU themselves).

That pales in comparison to Andijon alone, much less all the other **** that Karimov's security forces have been involved in. In sheer magnitude of threat to liberty, the Uzbek state is far more dangerous.

Regarding Egypt's "important" changes, there is no significant political opposition to Mubarak outside of the Muslim Brotherhood. Suprise, suprise, the Mubarak-controlled Parliament excluded them from the elections. Presidential elections that exclude the MB are practically meaningless. You say that these are broader elections than Iran's Presidential elections, but Iran has a far more healthy range of political debate, and many Reformists are able to run (Moin, for instance, was forced back on the ballot). And one should note that Mubarak is doing this because this is pretty much the least that he can do, after stirring up resentment by jailing a major rival. This is not some magnanimous gesture for democracy on behalf of Dear Leader's request, but a cynical method of underming opposition to his regime.

As for the idea that one can't reduce our billions in handouts to Mubarak due to Gaza, something is always happening in the region. That's a poor excuse to sit on asses. Do you honestly think that our $1.3 billion dollars in military aid and $.8 billion in economic aid can't be used as a bludgeon for reform? That's absurd. You're falling into this single-minded focus of terrorism above all again (speaking of which, I could certainly do without their "help" in questioning terror suspects).

The IMU has done little, because Karimov has so effectively clamped down on them. Reports during the Pakistani campaign in Waziristan indicated numerous IMU fighters there, and IMU leaders. They were in Pakistan, as previously they were in Afghanistan, precisely because they were pulled out of Uzbekistan.

Now how does that balance against Andijon? Like I said I dont KNOW. The admin policy now is to pressure, with words, Karimov to open up to UN investigation. If he does NOT, should we shut down aid to him? Maybe. But we will still need to consider the possibilty that we lose access to the bases, and yet Karimov will stay in power with Russian and Chinese help. Will the hearts and minds gain (despite no change on the ground in Uzbekistan) be worth it - I dont know.

As for Egypt - yes there is often (though far from always) possibilities of progress on the Israel/Pal front. Which is precisely why previous admins, and this admin prior to this year, did not go even as far as Rice has gone. And few of those possible opening on Israel/pal involved Egypt as directly as disengagement from Gaza does. A withdrawl from parts of the West Bank say, would not involve Egypt nearly as much.

As for MB being the real opposition, I would appreciate cites.

And BTW, I dont see enabling the Israeli-Pal peace process as merely a strategic action in the WOT. That is a question of human betterment, as surely as democratic reform in Egypt is.

As for Iran, the reformer who was put on the ballot is another Khatami style moderate - the intense, overtly secularist, opponents of the regime, the Iranian counterparts to what MB represents in Egypt, were excluded. And in any case the real difference is that in Egypt the election would be for a President who would actually be the highest authority in the state, while in Iran, as the experience of Khatami showed, the President is powerless in any confrontation with the mullah controlled Guardian and Expediency councils, and the security forces they control.

[Ramo]

So your argument is that if we stop giving Karimov all these funds and training, the Russians and Chinese will fill the vacuum so it makes no difference wrt to the abuses of their security forces. And that if we stop giving Karimov all these funds and training, the IMU will become much more successful. Don't you think that this position is rather contradictory? If the Russians and Chinese are going to back the Uzbeks up, that means we can do something besides propping up a ruthless dictator with those resources. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

Regarding Iran, from what I've read, Moin is significantly to the left of Khatami. And the point was that the opposition to Khamenei et al. are well-represented among the Iranian candidates; even the conservatives weren't really the extremist types (except for Ahmadinejad). That, again, is not the case in Egypt, where the main opposition is the MB, and are excluded from the election. And frankly, I doubt Mubarak's electoral process will be all that careful about avoiding fraud.

Regarding Gaza, again, I don't see how the threat of losing $2.1 billion would convince him to help out Hamas/IJ. That's really the opposite signal. If you don't reform and if you **** around in Gaza, you lose the money. What's so unreasonable about that tactic?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
"So your argument is that if we stop giving Karimov all these funds and training, the Russians and Chinese will fill the vacuum so it makes no difference wrt to the abuses of their security forces. And that if we stop giving Karimov all these funds and training, the IMU will become much more successful."

No. my statement is that I dont know, and these things need to be considered. Thats all. Either might occur - or neither.


" Don't you think that this position is rather contradictory? If the Russians and Chinese are going to back the Uzbeks up, that means we can do something besides propping up a ruthless dictator with those resources. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me."
Yup. the tradeoff would be military bases, though.



"Regarding Iran, from what I've read, Moin is significantly to the left of Khatami. "

Cite?

" And the point was that the opposition to Khamenei et al. are well-represented among the Iranian candidates; "

The secularist types who want to abolish the guardian and expediency councils, the students, etc were not. IE the guys who would be as much of a threat to the Mullahs as MB is to the Egyptian elite.

"even the conservatives weren't really the extremist types (except for Ahmadinejad)."

depends which take on Rafsanjani you buy.



" That, again, is not the case in Egypt, where the main opposition is the MB, and are excluded from the election. And frankly, I doubt Mubarak's electoral process will be all that careful about avoiding fraud."

Plenty of electoral fraud in Iran, it appears. In any case, the Egyptian election is for the actual leader of the country. The Iranian president, as Khatami showed, cannot be effective against the expedience and guardian councils and the security forces they control.


"Regarding Gaza, again, I don't see how the threat of losing $2.1 billion would convince him to help out Hamas/IJ. That's really the opposite signal. If you don't reform and if you **** around in Gaza, you lose the money. What's so unreasonable about that tactic? "

we need active cooperation from Egypt, not merely that they NOT support the terrorists. GePap attacks me for thinking that the 2 billion would buy us change in Egypt "power is more important than money" quoth he. You think it would buy change within Egypt, and support fro the peace process at the same time.