RSS
Using PayPal
ISLAM KARIMOV: AMERICA'S FRIEND AND THE NEXT SADDAM HUSSEIN
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Saturday, Jan 29 2005, 2:45PM
If one wanted to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt about his sermon-ish and idealistic inaugural address, then one of the first fronts of reform in U.S. foreign policy must be our relations with Uzbekistan and Islam Karimov, one of the true monstrous cretins at the helm of a government today.
America gave Uzbekistan $500 million to secure basing rights in this country -- and much of that money is allegedly being siponed into the private accounts of Karimov's thuggish allies. We have evidence that Karimov killed several, if not many more, of his political adversaries by boiling them alive in water. (Here is some evidence -- but do not look at these if disturbed by graphic images; these are pretty disturbing.) He is a dictator of gross proportions -- but he is still an ally of the United States in the war against terror.
According to this report, Karimov is now applying extra-territorial penalties on human rights and aid groups for 'his perception' of their activities in Georgia and Ukraine.
From the AP report:
Uzbek president Islam Karimov on Friday threatened to restrict the activities of Western aid groups that he alleged had helped stage public protests in Georgia and Ukraine, and voiced hope that the neighboring Central Asian nation of Kyrgyzstan would avoid such events in its election year.
"Examination of some Western aid groups has shown that their activity goes far beyond declared programs and it aims at certain goals," Karimov said in a speech before the newly elected parliament.
"We have enough power to curb the aid groups that violate our laws, I hope those sitting at the balcony understand that," Karimov said, pointing to the place where Western diplomats sit.
Last year, the Uzbek authorities accused U.S. aid groups of interfering in the country's internal affairs by helping banned opposition organizations, and they tightened restrictions on foreign aid groups, shutting the office of American philanthropist George Soros' Open Society Institute for alleged anticonstitutional activity.
The Karimov government does not allow free press or independent political opposition to operate in Uzbekistan.
Here is my note to TWN readers -- particularly any U.S. military stationed in Uzbekistan -- as well as aid workers and NGO employees who work in the country.
I would really like to know the true extent of our aid and involvement with Uzbekistan. Post a note and share what you know -- or better yet, send me an email at steve@thewashingtonnote.com.
I have tried to do some quick scans of DoD and government websites, and it seems that in some cases we have programs with Uzbekistan, but the news sometimes indicates that some of this is on hold.
Karimov is the kind of character that Saddam Hussein was a couple of decades ago -- someone whom the U.S. knew was a criminal thug but helped build up anyway because it appeared to be in our short-term interests. Karimov could be a real problem for us down the road -- and we will find that we armed him and made his party bosses rich.
Even one of our flagship U.S. firms, Coca-Cola, is in cahoots with Karimov. Check out this strange and bizarre story that involves the ex-son-in-law of Karimov and his ownership of a Coca-Cola operation. I imagine that anyone that makes it up the ladder in that country must be used to operating and prevailing in a place where the norm is to destroy your enemies. But Coca-Cola dumped the owner and became the lap dog of Karimov and his goons in one night.
While this story came out in August 2001 -- I checked, and it's still raging. So, I would like to hear some arguments from reasonable people why America should not cut off Karimov totally -- and whether we ought not to hold firms like Coca-Cola accountable for their role in enriching the world's thugs.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - PREPARING FOR WAR WITH IRAN: AN UPDATE ON SY HERSH'S ARTICLE» Next Article - MAX BOOT, PETER BEINART, DANIELLE PLETKA, IVO DAALDER: "WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. . ."
did you ever produce that Anatol Lieven review?
Steve, you need to talk to William Arkin or at least buy his book, Code Names. He'll learn ya.
Nathan Hamm was a Peace Corps volunteer in Uzbekistan and he has a somewhat nuanced position on America's relationship with Karimov. He'll disagree with this post of yours.
His blog is The Argus.
Praktike,
Many people had a "nuanced" view of Saddam 20 years ago, including most of Bush's cabinet.
I don't see evidence of a lot of long term thinking in people who favor pragmatic deals with monsters. Let's not have another Saddam, thank you.
Hey Steve,
I had to take a break from all the whining and cry-baby contributions here. Now I am back, curious to see how the Scowcroft "realists" and the Kennedy "quagmirists" are going to turn the Iraqi elections into something against G.W. Bush. By the way, have you heard the theory that the Democratic Party is going to go the way of the Whigs, and that the Republicans will eventually split in two? If Boxer-Kennedy cynicism is any indication, this may in fact come to pass if Democrats don't get rid of these people. All the best ... and congratulations to the heroic Iraqi people and Coalition Armed Forces.!
-- bertignac
PS:
Don't you think the Dems have clearly taken on the role of "peanut gallery" ... a bit like the French, criticizing from the sidelines but having no real place in the making of contemporary world history.
PSS:
by the way, how can you take anything that AP reports seriously?
Steve:
Speaking about "sermon-ish" (??!!) inaugural addresses, what do you think about this one? (an excerpt)... sounds like some religious fanatic:
"Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge—and more.
When we were fighting communism, our actions suggested that supporting any tyrant was excusable, as long as it furthered the goal of fighting communism. Communists were the BIG tyrannical threat, and a bunch of little tyrants (or terrorists!) could be tolerated. So in with Iraq, in with Indonesia, in with Saudi Arabia, in with Al Quaeda, et al.
Now terrorism is the big threat, partially caused by tyranny/oppression. (Incidentally these were some of the same terrorists and tyrants we backed during the cold war, like Saudi Arabia and Al Quaeda. But you know that.) The Bush administration seems to believe that supporting any *other* tyrant (or any *other* terrorist!) is excusable, as long as it furthers the goal of fighting the specific tyrannies or terrorists we currently oppose. So in with Uzbekistan, in with Pakistan, in with the Mujahedeen. This is perfectly reasonable if you are completely short-term self-interested. It also helps if you have no moral qualms about things like torture, oppression, tyranny, murder, and state funded-terrorism. Or at least can suppress your distaste for them long enough to achieve your goals.
If you are squeamish or would like to try your best to avoid hypocrisy, these are probably not the best choices.
My question is, aside from making yourself a hypocrite, tarnishing your credibility, and potentially alienating your allies and political constituency... is backing tyrants, terrorists, and other thugs and murders inevitably bound to come back to haunt you? That is, would backing a thug Uzbekistan certainly prove as dangerous to ourselves as backing a thug in Iraq was? Would working with MEK be as dangerous as Al Quaeda? Would being as pragmatic and undiscerning in choosing allies in fighting terrorism as we were fighting communism likely have the same results? New enemies?
I don't think these are questions that are easy to answer. I don't know that they can be answered to anyone's satisfaction. But if someone is going to justify these tactics, then I think they ought to be able to assure that sponsoring more tyrants or terrorists won't create similar trouble. If they likely will, than they are poor solutions to our current problems, and we should find others.
Berti,
I see you have not spent any time around civilized people since you were last here, as shown by your sneering, childish intro:
"Hey Steve,
I had to take a break from all the whining and cry-baby contributions here"
Honestly, the place has been much better when you were away---just check the comment threads and compare. Learn some manners, or do us a favor and stay away.
marky:
well, i know you love the company of people who agree with you ... but if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen ...
cry, baby, cry ... maybe you should write to Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Barbara Boxer and give them some lessons in civilizations ... i'll pass ....
Berti,
It's not about agreeing or not agreeing.
There are vigorous debates and disagreements on here when you are away---but without the infantile jeering.
By the way, you were quite dishonest in your remarks on Tariq Ramadan, particularly about the use of the word "intervention".
Suffice to say, Berti, that I am joining the ranks of those people who will not respond to anything you write again.. unless you drop the insulting manner, and act civilized.
Adieu,
marky:
Just a random grab from one of your posts, which of course, just passes ... sounds like barely disguised old-fashioned jew-hating to me, dressed up in a new dress ... but, that just passes, with your friends ... sad and frightening ...
"I fear that with all the Likudniks in the White House, this administration understands quite well that a little bit of terror is a good thing, politically---and sometimes a lot is ok too."
marky:
Well, read the work on Ramadan, i don't mean the apologetics ... come to Paris, I'll show you around ... what this stuff looks like on the street ... Ramadan is a jew-hater and a part of islamo-fascism ... now in bed with the new new left ...
marky:
i don't consider your barely disguised anti-semitic slurs as ""civilized", at least not the kind of civilization I want to live in ...
marky:
Tariq Ramadan's use of the word, in French "intervention" is offensive and disrespectful to everyone who died in the World Trade Center on Sept 11. I have lived in France from over 15 years and my French is excellent. Ramadan's use of the "relatively neutral" word intervention instead of a word like "attaque" put him clearly on the side of the terrorists. The change in the Paris suburbs over the past 15 years, to which Ramadan has contributed, towards islamism is an observable fact, and something that anybody who has any experience in France knows. And this isn't only true for the suburbs, but inside Paris as well. Young women, for example, are more and more in danger from the threats of Islamists. Do you deny this? And what do you know about France, really? Not much I suspect.
T.R.'s use of the French word "intervention" (which is much more neutral than it sounds in English), in response to a reporter's question using that exact word, in which T.R. roundly condemns the attacks, puts him "clearly on the side of terrorists", to you.
I'm afraid senescence has reached you early, dear Berti.. that is utter rot.
Or it could be that you are simply a liar.
You're in Reagan's bind, man.
Sorry for breaking my vow. It won't happen again.
marky:
Just a quick French lesson. "Intervention" (in French) and "intervention" (in English) are what are called "Faux amis" (false friends) ... in other words, they look like the same word, but they are not ... between English and French there are many of them and they form a common pitfall for people learning French (or English, as the case may be) ... the appropriate English translation for Ramadan's word "intervention" therefore is not "intervention" (in English) but "action", a diabolically neutral word, under the circumstances.
marky:
Here, I found you something in English from an nice, friendly American liberal periodical (The American Prospect) ...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/3/smith-l.html
"That Ramadan believes Islam will replace Judaism and Christianity may come as a surprise to those who thought he was just saying Islam is compatible with liberal values (it will certainly surprise the fathers at Notre Dame). Rather, Ramadan is a cold-blooded Islamist who believes that Islam is the cure for the malaise wrought by liberal values. His revision of the jihadist paradigm -- peaceful but total -- is brilliant in its way, and he may well turn out to be a major Islamist intellectual, far surpassing even his grandfather's influence. His cry of death to the West is a quieter and gentler jihad, but it's still jihad. There's no reason for Western liberals to try to understand that point of view."
Guys -- this is getting tedious. The last week of posts has been constructive and interesting -- let's drop the invective. Discuss, debate, argue -- but do so showing some respect for each other. Thanks much, Steve
The article from TAP looks quite fair.
While explaining that T.R. sees Islam as the solution to the West's ills, the writer notes
"That's not quite fair: Ramadan never advocates violence"
One problem with this article is the use of the term "jihadist". To call T.R. a jihadist, when he does not advocate violence, could lead to misleading quotations being taken from this article, since generally "jihadist" has the connotation of violence in English.
I think I said this before, but I don't care for T.R.'s politics, from what I know of them. However, I don't see any basis for him being excluded from the U.S. on the grounds that he would be a terrorist threat (the actual grounds for denial of his visa).
This thread is about Karimov and Uzbekistan.
I'm curious to know if Karimov is an ardent secularist like Saddam, or if he tries to use Islamic fervor to keep a grip on power.
I'm sure someone reading this blog knows the answer.
Karimov's no Islamist. He uses the term "Wahhabi" as a club to crack down on his opponents. I think there was a story once about him issuing an edict that everyone with a beard be locked up, or something. He's got a real dilemma, though, because there are lots of Islamists who belong to groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir who renounce violence, but just barely. So he locks 'em all up because his intelligence is lousy.
watched a little of cspan yesterday, heard christopher hitchens, hitchins, (the pentagon's favorite communist) mention steve clemons, just thought i'd mention it.
Geo - Thanks for the alert. What did Chris say??
Thanks, steve
Why Uzbekistan and not even a minor rhetorical nod toward Turkmenistan? Turkmenbashi is a much stranger, creepier and more totalitarian post-Sov dictator than Karimov. Is it the total lack of leverage next door, or some special beef with Uzbekistan?
Best, Doug
ps For unplesant guests, I recommend the soon-to-be-time-honored blog practice of disemvowelling. That is, removing all of the vowels from one or more posts. There's an automat at http://novalis.org/cgi/vowel.cgi and I'm told there's a Movable Type plug-in, if you're into that sort of thing. Teresa Nielsen Hayden (http://www.nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/) is, as far as I know, the originator of this honorable tactic.
Monster though he is I have considerable sympathy with his refusal to let "human rights" groups participate in elections. The western pressure to rerun the Ukrainian election did not noticeably result in a more democratic outcome & western pressure that produced a georgian rerun ended up in a 96% vote for the western supported side, which I do not find credible.
There is an increasing feeling that to be democratic an election does not so much have to reflect the locals' wishes as those of the Foundations & CIA who run fund "human rights" groups.
"Guys -- this is getting tedious. The last week of posts has been constructive and interesting -- let's drop the invective. Discuss, debate, argue -- but do so showing some respect for each other. Thanks much, Steve"
I guess you missed these two gems in posts during the week. By the way, I added an article to the posts on that historically truncated article with the offensively innuendo making Nazi photo.
"I didn't intend to mess up a fine thread on a truly exemplar web log by meaningless distictions and back and forths with an idiot."
"Guys -- this is getting tedious. The last week of posts has been constructive and interesting -- let's drop the invective. Discuss, debate, argue -- but do so showing some respect for each other. Thanks much, Steve"
Steve, I guess you missed these two gems in posts during the week. By the way, I added an article to the posts on that historically truncated article with the offensively innuendo making Nazi photo.
"David, you are being an asshole and I don't appreciate that."
"I didn't intend to mess up a fine thread on a truly exemplar web log by meaningless distictions and back and forths with an idiot."
a quick mention of steve's plan for iraq. i barely heard it. i was reading the local paper at the same time. it is being repeated sunday at 2pm et, i'm pretty sure. they also have the video available if you dig around c-span. all that for your 15 seconds of fame.
NC, your claim of a 96 percent vote for Yushchenko in Ukraine is simply not true.
"The commission announced that the final official tally of the December 26 voting -- which was a rerun of the November 21 election that was annulled amid allegations of massive fraud -- showed Yushchenko with 51.99 percent of the votes and Yanukovych with 44.2 percent."
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/01/10/ukraine.result.ap/index.html
The Memory Hole follows up with photos of members of the Bush administration with Islam Karimov and several articles about the man.
Reader Comments (32) - post a comment