G
gnjsdad
Guest
Uzbekistan and the Bush Administration’s sucking up to a local tyrant is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of “regime change”.
- Status
G
gilliam
Guest
Uzbeckistan was necessary for our winning the war in Afghanistan (remember 9/11???) Uzbeckistan it is the only country that borders all Central Asian countries as well as Afghanistan.
The Bush Administration has condemed the recent activities in Uzbekistan (which would have, and did, occur before we ever got involved with them). And has warned the government there that if they wish to have furture good relations with the US they need to change their ways.
One step at a time, one step at a time.
Your article states: In that respect Karimov has played his cards carefully. He blames the latest violence on a group associated with the Islamic Hizb-ut-Tahrir group, which the CIA believes has close links to al-Qaeda, and he knows only too well that Bush will be accused of being soft on terrorism if these leads are ignored.
Do you know for a fact, that al-Qaeda is not behind the current unrest? Just curious.
Regime Change was the US policy through the Clinton administration. The Bush administration’s policy is democratization. And it is being done, one step at a time. Watch and learn.
G
gilliam
Guest
UZBEKISTAN’S NOT-SO-GREAT GAME:
If the United States reacts to the Uzbek uprising based upon its articulated principle of supporting democracy, is it not repeating the mistakes of the Carter era, undermining an ally, and potentially paving the way for something worse?
Though there is some legitimacy to this concern, casting 2005 Uzbekistan in the role of 1979 Iran is an error. First, though Uzbekistan has been a meaningful ally in the War on Terror, Uzbekistan cannot be considered a staunch, long-term ally of the United States. Over the past several years, Uzbekistan has actively moved away from the West, towards an alliance of authoritarian states. Second, not all revolutions in Islamic countries are alike. The uprising in Uzbekistan is part of a larger international trend. The Iranian revolution was not. It inspired no imitators. No government outside of Iran has been toppled by a revolution based on the Iranian model. Uzbeks, on the other hand, have been observing a string of revolutions in countries with which they share a common history. . . .
China and Russia are standing behind their Shanghai Cooperation Organization partner. The foreign ministries of both countries have expressed support for Uzbekistan’s methods of maintaining order. Those who believe that the word “multilateral” automatically legitimizes any international action need to consider the situation in Uzbekistan very carefully. Uzbekistan is now the focal point of a multilateral effort of authoritarian powers trying to stop the international wave of democratization from progressing any further.
I can understand why they’d feel that way.
instapundit.com/archives/023210.php
If the United States reacts to the Uzbek uprising based upon its articulated principle of supporting democracy, is it not repeating the mistakes of the Carter era, undermining an ally, and potentially paving the way for something worse?
Though there is some legitimacy to this concern, casting 2005 Uzbekistan in the role of 1979 Iran is an error. First, though Uzbekistan has been a meaningful ally in the War on Terror, Uzbekistan cannot be considered a staunch, long-term ally of the United States. Over the past several years, Uzbekistan has actively moved away from the West, towards an alliance of authoritarian states. Second, not all revolutions in Islamic countries are alike. The uprising in Uzbekistan is part of a larger international trend. The Iranian revolution was not. It inspired no imitators. No government outside of Iran has been toppled by a revolution based on the Iranian model. Uzbeks, on the other hand, have been observing a string of revolutions in countries with which they share a common history. . . .
China and Russia are standing behind their Shanghai Cooperation Organization partner. The foreign ministries of both countries have expressed support for Uzbekistan’s methods of maintaining order. Those who believe that the word “multilateral” automatically legitimizes any international action need to consider the situation in Uzbekistan very carefully. Uzbekistan is now the focal point of a multilateral effort of authoritarian powers trying to stop the international wave of democratization from progressing any further.
I can understand why they’d feel that way.
instapundit.com/archives/023210.php
- Status