Full Version: Double Standards in the WOT
Bush and Blair told us it was about weapons of mass destruction. While that issue may still be technically up in the air, it certainly doesn't seem to have been quite as compelling as we were told. They told us there was an "imminent threat." Saddam Hussein could be poised to attack the United States. It isn't looking like much of a compelling reason now. The last, and most defendable position is the moral one: Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who killed, tortured, and generally oppressed his own citizens. In this we see a compelling reason for regime change, even if we don't support open war.
George Monbiot has written an interesting article about the War on Terror and Uzbekistan.
Tony Blair's New Friend
Sounds pretty brutal. And sadly, Uzbekistan is not the only nation with these kinds of troubles. But here's the key:
Does Britain and the United States' relationship with Uzbekistan undermine the moral imperative used as a reason for the invasion of Iraq?
Should we change that relationship, or is the War on Terrorism so important that dealing with human rights abusers (and giving them money and arms, and training their security forces) is acceptable?
George Monbiot has written an interesting article about the War on Terror and Uzbekistan.
Tony Blair's New Friend
QUOTE
There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan.2 Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, or leave them standing for a fortnight, up to their knees in freezing water.3 Sometimes they are a little more inventive. The body of one prisoner was delivered to his relatives last year, with a curious red tidemark around the middle of his torso. He had been boiled to death.4
His crime, like that of many of the country's prisoners, was practising his religion. Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, learnt his politics from the Soviet Union. He was appointed under the old system, and its collapse in 1991 did not interrupt his rule. An Islamic terrorist network has been operating there, but Karimov makes no distinction between peaceful Muslims and terrorists: anyone who worships privately, who does not praise the president during his prayers or who joins an organisation which has not been approved by the state can be imprisoned.5 Political dissidents, human rights activists and homosexuals receive the same treatment. Some of them, like dissidents in the old Soviet Union, are sent to psychiatric hospitals.6
His crime, like that of many of the country's prisoners, was practising his religion. Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, learnt his politics from the Soviet Union. He was appointed under the old system, and its collapse in 1991 did not interrupt his rule. An Islamic terrorist network has been operating there, but Karimov makes no distinction between peaceful Muslims and terrorists: anyone who worships privately, who does not praise the president during his prayers or who joins an organisation which has not been approved by the state can be imprisoned.5 Political dissidents, human rights activists and homosexuals receive the same treatment. Some of them, like dissidents in the old Soviet Union, are sent to psychiatric hospitals.6
Sounds pretty brutal. And sadly, Uzbekistan is not the only nation with these kinds of troubles. But here's the key:
QUOTE
But Uzbekistan, as Saddam Hussein's Iraq once was, is seen by the US government as a key western asset. Since 1999, US special forces have been training Karimov's soldiers.7 In October 2001, he gave the United States permission to use Uzbekistan as an airbase for its war against the Taliban.8 The Taliban have now been overthrown, but the US has no intention of moving out. Uzbekistan is in the middle of central Asia's massive gas and oil fields. It is a nation for whose favours both Russia and China have been competing. Like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it is a secular state fending off the forces of Islam.
So, far from seeking to isolate his regime, the US government has tripled its aid to Islam Karimov. Last year, he received $500 million, of which $79 million went to the police and intelligence services, who are responsible for most of the torture.9 While the US claims that its engagement with Karimov will encourage him to respect human rights, like Saddam Hussein he recognises that the protection of the world's most powerful government permits him to do whatever he wants. Indeed, the US State Department now plays a major role in excusing his crimes. In May, for example, it announced that Uzbekistan had made "substantial and continuing progress" in improving its human rights record.10 The progress? "Average sentencing" for members of peaceful religious organisations is now just "7-12 years", while two years ago they were "usually sentenced to 12-19 years."11
There is little question that the power and longevity of Karimov's government has been enhanced by his special relationship with the United States. There is also little question that supporting him is a dangerous game. All the principal enemies of the US today were fostered by the US or its allies in the past: the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Wahhabi zealots in Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein and his people in Iraq. Dictators do not have friends, only sources of power. They will shift their allegiances as their requirement for power demands. The US supported Islamic extremists in Afghanistan in order to undermine the Soviet Union, and created a monster. Now it is supporting a Soviet-era leader to undermine Islamic extremists, and building up another one.
So, far from seeking to isolate his regime, the US government has tripled its aid to Islam Karimov. Last year, he received $500 million, of which $79 million went to the police and intelligence services, who are responsible for most of the torture.9 While the US claims that its engagement with Karimov will encourage him to respect human rights, like Saddam Hussein he recognises that the protection of the world's most powerful government permits him to do whatever he wants. Indeed, the US State Department now plays a major role in excusing his crimes. In May, for example, it announced that Uzbekistan had made "substantial and continuing progress" in improving its human rights record.10 The progress? "Average sentencing" for members of peaceful religious organisations is now just "7-12 years", while two years ago they were "usually sentenced to 12-19 years."11
There is little question that the power and longevity of Karimov's government has been enhanced by his special relationship with the United States. There is also little question that supporting him is a dangerous game. All the principal enemies of the US today were fostered by the US or its allies in the past: the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Wahhabi zealots in Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein and his people in Iraq. Dictators do not have friends, only sources of power. They will shift their allegiances as their requirement for power demands. The US supported Islamic extremists in Afghanistan in order to undermine the Soviet Union, and created a monster. Now it is supporting a Soviet-era leader to undermine Islamic extremists, and building up another one.
Does Britain and the United States' relationship with Uzbekistan undermine the moral imperative used as a reason for the invasion of Iraq?
Should we change that relationship, or is the War on Terrorism so important that dealing with human rights abusers (and giving them money and arms, and training their security forces) is acceptable?
Does Britain and the United States' relationship with Uzbekistan undermine the moral imperative used as a reason for the invasion of Iraq?
Yep.
Should we change that relationship, or is the War on Terrorism so important that dealing with human rights abusers (and giving them money and arms, and training their security forces) is acceptable?
I doubt it can be changed for as along as America wishes to maintain regional control over the Caspian oil reserves.
And just who is a terrorist any way? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Just look at Israel, just about ever leader they've had was once a member of a terrorist faction.
And Germany's foreign minister Yoscker Fischer was once a provo who took part in street violence against the police.
And even Osama was once a trusted friend...
Yep.
Should we change that relationship, or is the War on Terrorism so important that dealing with human rights abusers (and giving them money and arms, and training their security forces) is acceptable?
I doubt it can be changed for as along as America wishes to maintain regional control over the Caspian oil reserves.
And just who is a terrorist any way? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Just look at Israel, just about ever leader they've had was once a member of a terrorist faction.
And Germany's foreign minister Yoscker Fischer was once a provo who took part in street violence against the police.
And even Osama was once a trusted friend...
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Oct 30 2003, 10:53 AM)
Does Britain and the United States' relationship with Uzbekistan undermine the moral imperative used as a reason for the invasion of Iraq?
Yes. We are being hypocritical in our policy of terrorists
QUOTE
Should we change that relationship, or is the War on Terrorism so important that dealing with human rights abusers (and giving them money and arms, and training their security forces) is acceptable?
I think we need to look at our past. The Shah was inserted into Iran to prevent a communist takeover of Iran. We used the shah (knowing of his human rights abuses) because he was important to the war on communism. We need to stop supporting nuts and fight without being hypocrits
MOIF:
QUOTE
And even Osama was once a trusted friend...
That rumor was dispelled
CIA/Bin Laden Myth dispelled
QUOTE
Bin Laden himself has repeatedly denied that he received any American support. “Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,” bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk in 1993. In 1996, Mr. Fisk interviewed bin Laden again. The arch-terrorist was equally adamant: “We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies.”
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Oct 30 2003, 11:53 AM)
They told us there was an "imminent threat."
Bush’s words were precisely the opposite.
“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.” ~ G.W. Bush
Other than that, I agree with GA completely.
It may be our own policies that come back to haunt us.
QUOTE(Beladonna @ Oct 30 2003, 12:40 PM)
Other than that, I agree with GA completely.
It may be our own policies that come back to haunt us.
It may be our own policies that come back to haunt us.
Wow..there's a first.
Anyway, sometimes we have to face our past policies and look at them and say "we screwed up. Let's not do that again"
We should not "look the other way" with allies.
Human rights violations are serious and should be condemned, no matter who commits them or what their strategic value is.
If I remember correctly, Uzbekistan was a key launching spot for the action against the Taliban in Afghanistan. That strategic point is now gone, since we control Afghanistan itself.
The actions of previous administrations should not keep our current one from doing the right thing. Bringing up the fact that Saddam used to be an ally of the US should actually be a point in favor of GW Bush (and his father, and Clinton). The previous relationship did not (and should not) excuse his behavior against the Kuwaitis, or the Kurds, or its violation of UN resolutions.
Same is true here. I am not saying we need to invade every country that commits human rights violations. But we should certainly put diplomatic and economic pressure on them to correct the situation.
Human rights violations are serious and should be condemned, no matter who commits them or what their strategic value is.
If I remember correctly, Uzbekistan was a key launching spot for the action against the Taliban in Afghanistan. That strategic point is now gone, since we control Afghanistan itself.
The actions of previous administrations should not keep our current one from doing the right thing. Bringing up the fact that Saddam used to be an ally of the US should actually be a point in favor of GW Bush (and his father, and Clinton). The previous relationship did not (and should not) excuse his behavior against the Kuwaitis, or the Kurds, or its violation of UN resolutions.
Same is true here. I am not saying we need to invade every country that commits human rights violations. But we should certainly put diplomatic and economic pressure on them to correct the situation.
QUOTE
We need to stop supporting nuts and fight without being hypocrits
something that has always been frustrating.
The different circumstances, communism, cold war, and now this terrorism all produce different alliances in keeping the US protected. In the instance of the Shah...disaster. Pinochet, unfortunate. The way these men had abused their powers in the end produced nothing but black eyes for the US. Decisions made by different administrations, all.
As I look around at world and all the problems, ideologies, the violence and how the philosophy of the US fits into the big picture all I can say is that I will never envy the job of ANY American President.
WHO in their right mind would want it!
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Oct 30 2003, 01:17 PM)
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Oct 30 2003, 10:53 AM)
Does Britain and the United States' relationship with Uzbekistan undermine the moral imperative used as a reason for the invasion of Iraq?
Yes. We are being hypocritical in our policy of terrorists
The only truly workable foreign policy for the USA is one that furthers the USA's interests.
For example: we were friends with Iraq in the 80's to offset Iran (remember the happy picture of Rumsfeld in Iraq back then?). Once Iraq decided to attack Kuwait, they became a threat to USA interests, so they were no longer our friend. We kept after Iraq because it was in our interest to maintain as much of the status quo as possible in the Gulf region. Still is, which is why we happily continue to support Saudi Arabia, even though we know it's the homefront for so much terroristic activity. But it furthers our interests to keep 2,000,000 barrels of oil flowing from SA to here EACH DAY and regeme change in SA may imperil that.
Another example: is Russia REALLY democratic and over its nasty ways from the bad old days? It's in our best interest to push this view and ignore all evidence to the contrary, since it helps maintain a balance of power with us relatively unopposed.
Uzbekistan is another example, apparently.
Our foreign policy doesn't need to be consistent. It just needs to further our interests. Any other view is just an exercise in "wouldn't it be nice" and that doesn't always further our interests with other governments. Sometimes you just have to stick with reality.
The War on Terror, by the way, is a fiction, if you hadn't noticed. Same as the "War on Drugs" we've been ineffectively fighting for years and years and years.
QUOTE(amf @ Oct 30 2003, 03:00 PM)
Still is, which is why we happily continue to support Saudi Arabia, even though we know it's the homefront for so much terroristic activity. But it furthers our interests to keep 2,000,000 barrels of oil flowing from SA to here EACH DAY and regeme change in SA may imperil that.
I don't think a regime change in SA will hinder the oil flow to the U.S.
QUOTE
Another example: is Russia REALLY democratic and over its nasty ways from the bad old days? It's in our best interest to push this view and ignore all evidence to the contrary, since it helps maintain a balance of power with us relatively unopposed.
There is evidence and everyone knows it and acknowledges it. The media reports from CNN and all the others that Russia is taking over privately-owned media news networks in the country is nothing new. That and everyone knows the KGB is still around under different names and sometimes working for the highest bidder. I don't think Russia will ever be ble to shake off the communist fleas of it's past
Does Britain and the United States' relationship with Uzbekistan undermine the moral imperative used as a reason for the invasion of Iraq?
No. Uzbekistan was not a threat to our national security. We attacked Iraq primarily over WMD. Just because we haven't found any doesn't change the reason we did it. Anyway, we're not talking with Plato in an Athenian garden about the nature of a moral war. We had a legitimate national secuirty need to work with Uzbekistan. If we want them to stop human right's abuses we could slap some sanctions on them (and we've seen how that game goes) or try to bring them into our camp to see things from our point of view. We needed their help so we did the latter.
Should we change that relationship, or is the War on Terrorism so important that dealing with human rights abusers (and giving them money and arms, and training their security forces) is acceptable?
I'm curious if anything in your house says,'Made in China'.
Edited to add:Incidentally, our military assistance to Uzbekistan is monitored, and the funds must be accounted for or they are cut off as part of the agreement. Therefore, funds cannot go towards police humanitarian rights violations or they lose that funding. The vast majority of funds (around 80 percent) are towards FSA activity (Freedom Support Act-which was passed in Congress in early 90s). It provides the states of the former Soviet Union with funds that support democratic reforms through humanitarian and technical assistance, as well as nuclear nonproliferation programs and activities, and the destruction of biological, chemical and conventional weapons, and humanitarian aid, including health and human services programs. Uzbekistan is replete with buried anthrax and other biohazards left over from Soviet occupation.
A Measure To Increase Human Rights Protection: Uzbekistan
Here's a record of recent and prospective future military-to-military activity with Uzbekistan. Notice that there have been no documented conventional arms sales or transfers.
Edited (again) to add: Just thought I'd throw in, we were right to back the mujahideen. Ubekistan provides an excellent example of why that's the case. The 'Stans served as Moscow's clandestine test lab and toxic wasteland. The Soviets conducted hazardous military experiments and brewed anthrax and plague germs over there. That was the force invading Afghanistan. We couldn't confront the Soviet directly (because of the unpleasant annihilation of the entire human race aspect), so we backed the internal forces opposing them. I suppose we could've just let them take Afghanistan, I'm sure they would have been interested in going anywhere else, and they were a nice, civil bunch with their landmines and bombs in toys.
Making the wrong choice requires that there was actually a BETTER choice. Even hindsight 20/20 (if used honestly) doesn't offer that.
No. Uzbekistan was not a threat to our national security. We attacked Iraq primarily over WMD. Just because we haven't found any doesn't change the reason we did it. Anyway, we're not talking with Plato in an Athenian garden about the nature of a moral war. We had a legitimate national secuirty need to work with Uzbekistan. If we want them to stop human right's abuses we could slap some sanctions on them (and we've seen how that game goes) or try to bring them into our camp to see things from our point of view. We needed their help so we did the latter.
Should we change that relationship, or is the War on Terrorism so important that dealing with human rights abusers (and giving them money and arms, and training their security forces) is acceptable?
I'm curious if anything in your house says,'Made in China'.
Edited to add:Incidentally, our military assistance to Uzbekistan is monitored, and the funds must be accounted for or they are cut off as part of the agreement. Therefore, funds cannot go towards police humanitarian rights violations or they lose that funding. The vast majority of funds (around 80 percent) are towards FSA activity (Freedom Support Act-which was passed in Congress in early 90s). It provides the states of the former Soviet Union with funds that support democratic reforms through humanitarian and technical assistance, as well as nuclear nonproliferation programs and activities, and the destruction of biological, chemical and conventional weapons, and humanitarian aid, including health and human services programs. Uzbekistan is replete with buried anthrax and other biohazards left over from Soviet occupation.
A Measure To Increase Human Rights Protection: Uzbekistan
QUOTE
While the administration and Congress have acted in unison to lift restrictions on military assistance since September 11, Congress has taken the initiative to increase monitoring in at least one country-Uzbekistan, a major human rights abuser. In late October, Senator Paul Wellstone (Democrat, Minnesota) introduced an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act that requires the State Department to submit to the relevant congressional committees two reports on military assistance to Uzbekistan. According to its final version, the provision requires one report four months after the bill's enactment and one six months after that. The reports must include a list of U.S. security aid given to Uzbekistan and describe in detail how Uzbek units used the U.S. defense articles, defense services, and financial assistance during that period.22 Wellstone told the Senate that while Uzbekistan is a key U.S. ally in the war on terrorism, it has a record of serious human rights abuses, including torture, illegal detention, and persecution of independent Muslims. He said, "We must ensure that anti-terrorism efforts are conducted in a manner that protects religious freedom and other human rights, and we must carefully monitor our cooperation with Uzbekistan to ensure that protection".
Here's a record of recent and prospective future military-to-military activity with Uzbekistan. Notice that there have been no documented conventional arms sales or transfers.
Edited (again) to add: Just thought I'd throw in, we were right to back the mujahideen. Ubekistan provides an excellent example of why that's the case. The 'Stans served as Moscow's clandestine test lab and toxic wasteland. The Soviets conducted hazardous military experiments and brewed anthrax and plague germs over there. That was the force invading Afghanistan. We couldn't confront the Soviet directly (because of the unpleasant annihilation of the entire human race aspect), so we backed the internal forces opposing them. I suppose we could've just let them take Afghanistan, I'm sure they would have been interested in going anywhere else, and they were a nice, civil bunch with their landmines and bombs in toys.
Making the wrong choice requires that there was actually a BETTER choice. Even hindsight 20/20 (if used honestly) doesn't offer that.
QUOTE
Does Britain and the United States' relationship with Uzbekistan undermine the moral imperative used as a reason for the invasion of Iraq?
No, the original reason for the invasion of Iraq was the threat of WMD. That is why I thought the Bush administration was making the case that Iraq was an imminent threat. Otherwise, there was no reason to believe that further diplomatic attempts could not adequately solve the problem.
Obviously, there was some bad intelligence as admitted by even some republican congressmen. So, the Bush administration has to lean harder against the fact that Saddam was "a really bad guy."
QUOTE
Should we change that relationship, or is the War on Terrorism so important that dealing with human rights abusers (and giving them money and arms, and training their security forces) is acceptable?
Why would we want to do something stupid like that when those are the countries that are supplying us with all our cheap goods by enforcing slave like labor conditions?
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Oct 30 2003, 04:56 PM)
QUOTE(amf @ Oct 30 2003, 03:00 PM)
Still is, which is why we happily continue to support Saudi Arabia, even though we know it's the homefront for so much terroristic activity. But it furthers our interests to keep 2,000,000 barrels of oil flowing from SA to here EACH DAY and regeme change in SA may imperil that.
I don't think a regime change in SA will hinder the oil flow to the U.S.
You don't think so, but the geniuses at Foggy Bottom and other government agencies act -- and sound -- like it would. Otherwise, why else would this administration go to great pains to paint 9/11 as NOT having anything to do with Saudi Arabia (yeah, it was Iraq all along!
)?
QUOTE(amf @ Oct 31 2003, 08:39 AM)
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Oct 30 2003, 04:56 PM)
QUOTE(amf @ Oct 30 2003, 03:00 PM)
Still is, which is why we happily continue to support Saudi Arabia, even though we know it's the homefront for so much terroristic activity. But it furthers our interests to keep 2,000,000 barrels of oil flowing from SA to here EACH DAY and regeme change in SA may imperil that.
I don't think a regime change in SA will hinder the oil flow to the U.S.
You don't this so, but the geniuses at Foggy Bottom and other government agencies act -- and sound -- like it would. Otherwise, why else would this administration go to great pains to paint 9/11 as NOT having anything to do with Saudi Arabia (yeah, it was Iraq all along!
)? I think they are wrong. Also, i think it is crazy to connect Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. Plus, as i have been saying many times before, attacking Mecca would get us nmore trouble.
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Oct 31 2003, 07:53 AM)
QUOTE(amf @ Oct 31 2003, 08:39 AM)
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Oct 30 2003, 04:56 PM)
QUOTE(amf @ Oct 30 2003, 03:00 PM)
Still is, which is why we happily continue to support Saudi Arabia, even though we know it's the homefront for so much terroristic activity. But it furthers our interests to keep 2,000,000 barrels of oil flowing from SA to here EACH DAY and regeme change in SA may imperil that.
I don't think a regime change in SA will hinder the oil flow to the U.S.
You don't this so, but the geniuses at Foggy Bottom and other government agencies act -- and sound -- like it would. Otherwise, why else would this administration go to great pains to paint 9/11 as NOT having anything to do with Saudi Arabia (yeah, it was Iraq all along!
)? I think they are wrong. Also, i think it is crazy to connect Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. Plus, as i have been saying many times before, attacking Mecca would get us nmore trouble.
As with so many of the posts on this thread, it is easy to throw rocks at the problems when you aren't required to find the solutions.
The Saudi hijackers came from the southwest Asir region, where tribal loyalties are strong, and there is support for bin Laden. The house of Saud is arguably a better friend to us than a large percent of the population. That's why we've been able to occupy their country for the past 12 years in spite of the majority wishes.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.