Uzbekistan quells Demonstrations

Remove all ads!

Well, notorious human rights violator Karimov of Usbekistan has just let had his tropps fire into a crowd of demonstrators and kill a good dozen of them.

All the while, Uzbekistan remains a close ally of the US, with its airspace and military facilities made available for the ongoing operation in Afghanistan.

And the US State Department's website carries reports on the "systematic" use of torture by the Uzbek government, but also, somehow, manages to call it "a stable and moderate force". Well then Karimov is a good guy I take it

Scott McClellan put is nicely when he said: "The people of Uzbekistan want to see a more representative and democratic government. But that should come through peaceful means not through violence, and that's what our message is."
Ah yes. Would he have said that to the people in Berlin of 1953 and Budapest of 1956, too?

Tough regime finds unlikely allies
White House: Karimov's just cracking down on terrorists
US concerned terrorists freed in Uzbek jail break

 

Yeah there is definently some hypocracy in what the US says, but on the other hand what is EU doing? Sitting quiet in the corner and "condemning" the actions of the Uzbek government and after that they'll just get back bickering about the new "sugar directive" or something equally important.

Anyway I'm quite pleased about this wave of revolutions which began from Georgia that has been rampaging in the terretories of the former Soviet Union. Next stops should be Uzbekistan, Belarus and Turkemistan. Hopefully these revolutions will result in democratic governments though and not in bloodshed and after that to another totalitarian reigme.

 

The previous British ambassador to Uzbekistan was moved out of his post for attempting to highlight human rights abuses there - he's been quite vocal over here in condemning the government for not acting to end oppression over there. He's also stated that he believes the notion of Karimov being a part of the war on terror is a red herring; it's far more to do with the Uzbeks' plentiful supplies of oil.

In addition, he believes that the lack of support for the citizens of Uzbekistan may see them turn more to violence and fundamentalism for solutions - a defeat of US/European policy on both fronts, moral and pragmatic.

 

US-Armed Uzbek Forces Present in Andijan Crackdown, when some hundred or so Demonstrateors where killed.

So I wonder wether there will be consequences over that.

 

Likely not, Ragusa. As I've said countless times before, the Americans are no angels. With Uzbekistan, they are not doing what they should be doing. That doesn't mean they don't get credits for doing the right things elsewhere.

The U.S. Government likely doesn't give a rat's hind end about human rights abuses -- they want to ensure American security and prosperity, first and foremost. If, in the course of doing so, they liberate gassed Kurds and oppressed women under the Taliban, good stuff.

If, on the other hand, they sleep with the devil to maintain relative quiet in an area of the world, then they are bastards, just like every single other government in the world -- have ANY European countries decided to sever economic, political or diplomatic ties with the Uzbeki government because of their human rights abuses? Good on them if they did, but I doubt it.

This includes Canada -- I would bet we are still trading with the Uzbekis, which makes us just as guilty as the rest of the world's wimpy governments.

 

US blocked NATO call for probe of Uzbek 'massacre'?

How comes I'm not surprised?

 

Simply put, because you expected it.
So the solution is someone turns Kerimov against Bush. Then we have another Ukraine - or another Yugoslavia.

 

Ain't that sad?

These Bush goons are all the same: Take Rumsfeld, he's a compulsive liar, a serial liar, a pathological liar.

As a result of that, the maxim one should always follow in listening to the sneering Rumsfeld is to calculate the exact inverse of whatever he says and assume that that will approximate the truth.

An example:

Rumsfeld sais "We have negotiations with the insurgency"

The next day the US Commander in Iraq, Army Gen. George Casey dissents, standing beside Rumsfeld: "Not yet. Not, to the best of my knowledge, yet. We may start moving there, but the first thing we want to do is meet with Sunni leaders. And a lot of these folks claim they have leverage over the insurgents that we've yet to see realized, frankly.But, to characterize them as negotiations with insurgents about stopping the insurgency, we're not quite there yet."

What, no meetings?

Now the best part: During Vietnam, Rumsfeld Criticized Administration For “Credibility Gap”