Hello.

Uzbekistan has been in the news quite a bit recently.

It is a dictatorship and has been accused of practicing torture (here). However, it is also an ally in the War Against Terror, being an Central Asian country that has allowed the US to set up bases there. The US Dept. of State also recognises the Uzbekistan does not respect human rights (US Dept of State link

So my question for debate is:

Is it right for the US to accept ANYONE as an ally in the War Against Terror, even if the countries are regimes which do not believe in either democracy or basic human rights?

Lyear a UK diplomat was returned home from Uzbekistan at the request of the US. The diplomat was quite outspoken and in particular was complaining that we (i.e. US / UK) should not be supporting countries that torture people. He was particularly upset because there have been reports that people have been boiled alive. (Guardian story)

IMO supporting a dictator reflects badly on the US and makes it appear hypocritical. Why should the Middle East listen to the US when it calls for democracy if it will support friendly dictators?
There is also a greater risk of popular revolution, which could lead to anti-US feeling in a new Uzbekistan
Not to mention the moral implications of supporting a regime that practices torture.

But are these problems outweighed by the need to combat terrorism?

This is the juggling act which is called "foreign policy". A "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of scenario.

We literally NEEDED Uzbekistan's support in order to launch part of our invasion of Afghanistan.

There are, of course, two ways to look at such situations:

1. How can we possibly deal with such regimes, given their histories.
or
2. How can we be a positive influence on a country with which we refuse to have contact with?

Hopefully, we can be a positive influence on the Uzbeks, just by our mere presence.

But, gee, Amlord, isn't this just the kind of thing we were supposedly stopping in Iraq? A brutal dictator, who tortured and killed his own people?

Either we adhere to our principals, and refuse to do business with regimes like this, or we have no real principals. We can't go in and bust up one country for despotism and harboring terrorists, by using another country that does the same thing, unless hypocrisy doesn't bother you.

We drastically need to get a cohesive foreign policy in this country, and stick with it, unless extreme measures dictate otherwise. If we do not, we may well have the fear of a lot of countries, but we certainly won't be gaining any respect.

This is actually a hard one for me. Yet I do feel inclusion, participation and creating shared prosperity is the key to peace.

Although this is certainly not a practice of the US alone..making shady friends.

We -as in all of us- are very friendly with China..she is a permanent UNSC member. She is also a well known human rights violater a dictatorship and not in the least bit democratic. Pakistan again not a very clean friend to have...and she too is currently on the UNSC. Saudi Arabia? Are the people of these countries harmed more or less by our international acceptance? Are North Koreans harmed more or less by our international condemnations?

EDITED TO ADD....



Shouldn't perhaps actual warfare be reserved as an absolute last resort? Whether you feel Iraq and the decision to invade was absolute last resort or not is mute in this discussion. The ideal is to attempt to engage and coerce a nation with economic rewards and mutual trade dependence. Something that was not attempted in Iraq either. Containment is an obvious and well documented FAILURE. Either we make positive attempts for change or else we really have no when else to blame but ourselves when a country or nation is kept stagnant and does not grow with the political ideals of the modern world.

I agree with Amlord that foreign policy is a tricky beast. (Which is one of the reasons I personally don't believe we need to participate, but that's another topic).


We were not in Iraq to stop a dictator from abusing his own people. We were in Iraq on a personal vendetta of our current president's. The only one hypocritical here is our president who says we're going to war for one reason, but the reality is another reason. The only way we as a nation become hypocritical is if we re-elect him.



We don't really have principals - unless money is a principal. And I'm not being cynical, but really - capitalism runs this society, and arrogance leads it. Principals are in church on sunday morning. Or in Massachusetts protesting gay marriage. Or a sitting national security officer. Principals have very little place in foreign policy.


I agree.

Seeing that this is supposed to be a debate, do you have any documentary evidence to support these allegations?

The problem with these responses is obvious: Iraq did not seek to better its standing with the international community, other nations are making an effort.

The fact of the matter is that similar apparently contradictory stances have been a part of every administration.

ForeignPolicy MUST be flexible, or it cannot work. We cannot stick our head in the sand (i.e. no foreign policy) and we cannot be so rigid that working with certain regimes is totally out of the question.

Where did I ever advocate warfare as a first resort, instead of a last resort? When did I say that we needed to militarily contain these countries? I didn't. My comment was (sarcastically) directed to those that said "Saddam has to go because he's a bad guy", and then turn around and use another dictatorial country to advance that end.


Sheesh....apparently nobody gets sarcasm these days.


Amlord, I would agree with you, if it weren't for the fact that we always seem to pick the worst regimes to deal with as "friendlies". There are things, both positive and negative that can be used to effect change, without simply arming these regimes against their "enemies", and then feigning "surprise" when in comes back to bite us in the backside.

That's not a foreign policy, it's a continued recipe for disaster.

We are keeping an eye on Uzbekistan. In October of 2002, Sen. Paul Wellstone added an amendment to the Foreign Operations Bill, mandating that the State Department report to Congress on human rights issues in Uzbekistan. Last July, Sen. Patrick Leahy added similar language to an emergency spending bill that granted them $45 million. The Leahy amendment too states that non-compliance with international human-rights standards should result in a forfeiture of aid.

Our military assistance is monitored, the funds must be accounted for, and substantial progress made in the human rights department, or they are cut off as part of the agreement. What is the better alternative? We might slap sanctions on them, and we’ve seen how that goes. Invade and occupy them…and we’ve seen how that goes. We could suggest to make the president of Uzbekistan the head of the UN human rights commission … Or, monitor the funding and work with them from the inside. Certainly, we have a legitimate national security interest for doing so.

Isreal practices torture- has wmds and ignores UN mandates- yet we have them as an ally as well.

There is no particular rhyme or reason to our morality, just as it is in our country.

This sounds like "is the enemy of your enemy your friend?"

The problem with this is how often this type of foreign policy turns on the US. Guess it's a kind of Karma thing.

A few examples of allies that we used to have based on the idea that "the enemy of your enemy your friend":

1. Saddam Hussein
2. Osama bin Laden
3. Pinochet
4. Noriega

ohh I understood your sacrasm just fine NiteGuy. My point was that we hadn't just become friendly with Iraq as of last year. We hadn't just recently been asking Mr. Hussein to stop being such a horrible guy, or to stop invading countries, or denying his people their political and human rights or to uphold international laws and standrads as of 2001. I just feel it is silly to compare our country's relationship with Iraq and the regime of Saddam Hussein with that of Uzbekistan..there is nothing similar.

Hmm, nothing similar. Let's see.

A country who has a record of severe human rights violations, including the torture and murder of his own citizens, is in a location convenient for us to use in the WOT.

In order to be able to use this country, they request monetary assistance, and military equipment. We provide it to them. We tell them that in order to keep getting the money, they will have to improve their human rights record.

Does that pretty well sum up our position in Uzbekistan? Now, go back and look at our position vis-a-vis Iraq in the 80's, and tell us again that there are no similarities. Then, look ahead 10 or 15 years, and tell us that Uzbekistan couldn't possibly be the next Iraq.

And it could just as possibly NOT be the next Iraq. Your descriptions can fit just about every nation we have had a relationship with. Germany slaughtered millions of their own citizens, we find Germany's strategic location appealing and helpful to us on our WOT and in order to use the country we make monetary and military exchanges..what is the difference? Japan..again all the same descriptions can be applied and why didn't Japan suffer the inevitable? China one of our allies in WWII, one of the most well known human rights violaters and everyone seems to be clamouring to befriend her..she is a perm UNSC member. Soooo.. what is the difference..didn't I already ask this?

The difference is, Germany's and Japan's human rights abuses were more than 60 years ago, for the most part. We spent years after WWII, actively working to bring Germany and Japan back into the world community before we began to allow them arms again.

As far as China is concerned, while we may be pushing them towards Capitalism through trade agreements, we are most certainly not sending them any military hardware.

Uzbekistan is a lot like Iraq in many ways. An 80% Muslim population. Unable to grow much of their own food anymore, because of chemical and pesticide damage to the soil. Lack of adequate infrastructure to leverage mineral and oil deposits effectively. A totalitarian government, who has tortured and murdered it's own citizens, and threatened military action against it's neighbors.

And these are the people we are actively supplying with arms and ammunition. For what? A little political expediency in the War on Terror? A big mistake, in my opinion.

Are you sure we are actively supplying them with arms? I don't believe there have been conventional arms transfers to Uzbekistan. Here is a link which offers notification of arms sales to Congress: http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/world.html . It is a matter of public record. We have given them only 16 transport vehicles (that was in 2000).

The vast majority of military funding to Uzbekistan (around 80 percent) is towards FSA activity (Freedom Support Act-which was passed in Congress in early 90s). That provides states of the former Soviet Union with funds that support democratic reforms through humanitarian and technical assistance, nuclear nonproliferation programs, 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. We have also invested in IMET funding (International Military Education and Training) for the Uzbeks, which is given to pay for professional education in military management and training. Here is a source for the above FSA and IMET information.

Thanks to Mrs. Pigpen for her focus on factual information.

I would be interested NiteGuy for you to pinpoint what support it is you oppose in regards to Uzbekistan? Do you oppose us recognizing her? Do you oppose our president's visits? Do you oppose our open discussions and relationship with her in regards to security, drug trafficking, nuclear proliferation, political and human rights? Do you oppose our support on economics and foreign investment in the country? Our push for her to reform herself politically?

A lot of ranting but nothing substantial. What are we to do? Our govt has a full blown military operation in their region..should maybe perhaps being that we are walking around their neighborhood in full armory that we should attempt to soothe their fears of our role in there little piece of the world and that we care about their role in it too? Should we perhaps ask for assistance and cooperation in our mission from those who actually live there or demand it? Or do you think it is best for all of us for the US to take the aggressive my morality is better than your morality stance and demand they do things our way or else...what?

Or maybe you would prefer for us to just ignore them while we stage warfare in and around their country sending the message that America can and will do what it wants where it wants and those who live there can just deal with it? That would probably go over real well. That is the question I asked of your position which you haven't responded. Are the people of Uzbekistan better served with our involvement or not? Do you feel ignoring them much like we do to North Korea, Congo or Burma would help push internal reform? Because to me that is a atrocity that we all sit around and don't act on and don't talk about and don't attempt to involve ourselves and push for changes in places like The Congo where some of the worst ever slaughtering of civilians has occurred. To me that is a crime, a disgrace and a disservice to the world and humanity.

It is not entirely the fault of America that a lot of people in this world are not nice guys. America is certainly not the only ally to have in the world. Have we failed ..yes...have we succeeded..yes.. and we have to keep trying to succeed. We have to deal with the world being that we do live in it and we do want it to be a happy successful place. So that in return means sometimes you have to have a chat with the dictator, or the human rights abuser or the militant govt. The truly sad thing is as an American you are one of the lucky ones...only 44% of the world's population lives free.

I disagree with your view I don't think our involvement with an unsavoury will and will always lead to disaster. So far our influence in Uzbekistan has been positive..they have registered human rights orgs in the country, they are being pressured to open their economy up and reform it, the US has lent support and funds for health system upgrades and environmental protections and there is a major focus on individual rights and more democratic changes coming from our govt.

bucket



That is quite a statement you have made. This is my opinion and I disagree with your opinion.

1. "lot of people in this world are not nice guys"- In hindsight our actions in the past year haven't convinced me that WE are the nice guys either.

2. "you have to have a chat with the dictator ,or the human rights abuser or the militant govt."- so you side with one dictator to punish another dictator. how do you determine which dicatator is less lethal? who makes that determination? If you play ball with one human rights abuser and condemn another human rights abuser,who made you judge to decide who is who? You can't make judgements like that and not expect to be dragged down into the gutter with the rest of the countries with the same characteristics.

Hmm... that might have something to do with Foreign Policy ..?

Once again nothing I asked or pointed out was addressed...you can't you can't you can't. Well please do tell us what you can do. I already got the gist of the argument thanks. So why not focus on telling me why you can't and what could be considered an alternative approach..besides ignoring it.

Oh and please Popeye or anyone else...enlighten me on how our policy with Uzbekistan is less moral and more damaging to humankind than how we have approached the governments in the Congo, North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe,Guatemala, Cuba, and the list goes on.....

Contrary to your belief there are other arm dealers in this world. There is an alternative alliance out there. Others are just as anxious to fund their ideal of government too.

No, actually, that has more to do with a lack of a real foriegn policy.


Ok, as to what can be done - how about demanding to see some real improvements before we just had over the cash. Why is it we have to fork over our hard earned money first, and then hope they'll change? And what happens if they don't make any changes? Do you really think we're going to be able to get a refund?

I believe the "why" has already been answered, bucket. More than once. Because it's hypocritical and dangerous to prop up one tyranical dictator, just to take down another one. I have no objection to pushing for human rights improvements, and assisting with rebuilding their infrastructure, etc., but I want to see that they are willing and making an effort to fix their own problems first.

It amazes me that people here think the solution to self sufficiency in our own country is to greatly restrict or eliminate welfare, unless we force those on welfare to prove they are making an effort, beforehand. But, when it comes to countries like Iraq in the 80's, or Uzbekistan now, it's perfectly ok to throw money at these folks with the hope that they will "see the light" and suddenly change the way they do business. It's just foolhardy.

As jenreiautter pointed out, we considered Saddam Hussein, Osama bin-Laden, and a host of other dictators to be "allies" in the past, and we are paying for it dearly now. Does that mean it will always happen? Of course not. Does it happen more often than not? Sure seems like it, if recent history is any judge.


I do not oppose open discussions with regard to security, drugs, arms proliferation or human rights. I have no problems with companies that can benefit from trade with them doing so in order for them to financially improve their position, and help them build their country.

I do oppose having our President or any other high level administration executive visit without seeing the beginnings of some kind of reform first. In 10 or 20 years, I don't want to see a picture of Rumsfeld, or Powell or Bush shaking hands with the very dictator we are going to war with. Once was quite enough, thank you.

Also, the fact that there are other arms dealers in the world is hardly "contrary to my beliefs". I am more than aware of that fact. But let's see some real effort on their part to attempt reform before we just say "ok, here's the money and guns you wanted. Now, be a good little country, or we'll have to cut off your allowance." Because by the time we do cut off their funding, it's usually already too late.

Our troops are sitting in Uzbekistan right now. Their airbase was a key staging point for American operations in Afghanistan. We've formed a strategic partnership agreement to allow us to do that. Let's see....we want to occupy your country and put you at major risk (they have encountered terrorist bombings for this), but we won't give you funds to increase your boarder security while we put you at risk, and we won't give you humanitarian aid until you drastically change your act. But, we do send humanitarian aid to North Korea. How about this for diplomatic policy? We will send aid only to countries with potential nuclear weapons who are hostile to us. We won't favor those who help us combat terrorism and allow us to occupy their country. I predict that we would last about a month with this new policy.

As mentioned before, a large percentage of their funding is contingent upon substantial progress made in the human rights department, or they are cut off as part of the agreement. The funding which is not contingent upon such progress is designed to help that progress... specifically Democratic reform and human rights programs, and commodities such as medicines, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, medical supplies, clothing, and food.

It's hard to say, only because, as Amlord pointed out, in some situations you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. But if it's one thing everyone understands, it's the language of money.

US military personell will spend money there. The Pentagon will invest a lil, and with American money comes American ideals. Eventually Uzbekistan will want to do business with us and the greenback will influence change. Look at Vietnam, look at China, look at what was the USSR.

Now this brings to light something else. We do business with China and Vietnam regularly. Both have some of the worst records on human rights. So do we stop doing business with them completely, or do we hope that a free market inspires other 'free ideals'? I think, as in most cases, we need to find the middle ground. For instance, although we do a lot of business with China, I opposed their entrance into the WTO. I mean, they have eight year olds working at firework production facilities. It's insane. But we're slowly making dents in the way we affect their society. I just wish we'd make bigger ones regarding issues on human rights.

One thing....regardless of your political leanings... that you can say about America is that she is certainly not lacking a foreign policy. Maybe you feel it is inadequate etc. yet for well over 50 yrs our country has been one of the most important leaders on the world stage. Not somewhere we lack..perhaps error but not lack.


You were shown evidence of this already..perhaps a review of the thread is needed ..check Mrs. Pigpen's post.

Your the one who wants to make welfare analogies and second guess people's standings on such issues. Well I don't think your going to get much from anyone except hatred and mistrust by telling them they are dirt (or morally inferior) and then punishing them for being less than you.

Excluding nations from the international stage is a punishment, making nations undesirables for trade and foreign investment is a punishment, sanctions are punishment and all of these things have historically not worked. Hitler, Saddam, Kim Jong,
Expecting change, shared prosperity, free society, open markets, and shared ideals from the demands of an enemy, the rival trade bloc or the international condemning committee is a failed plan.

I don't think you can be self sufficient in our world and still be an open, prospering and leading nation. Why would anyone consider self sufficiency a Good Thing ? What is being self sufficient mean exactly? It means you are secluded, you are not interested in the rest of the world because your interests lie only within yourself, you are probably xenophobic, you have only yourself as a guide and demand on your actions. Why would we want to have a world full of nations acting, behaving and thinking independently? North Korea's main aims are to live self sufficiently certainly not the ideal framework for a forward thinking open and progressive society.

Excluding a nation from the world is to me a far more riskier action...because it an open invitation for the alternative market to make it's own bids.

Oh and your It's too late point...was it too late when 6 million Jews laid dead? Or was half a million Romani dead perhaps a signal of our late arrival? Is 100,000 dead Iraqi children too late ? When was it too late in Rwanda? How many more of the 3+ million North Koreans need to die until our policy's effectiveness is too late? When will it ever be too late in The Congo? We have a moral obligation to try and push for positive change and it usually takes money to make things move.

Perhaps you cringe to see evidence of our nation's role or attentions to a certain nation or person throughout history. I personally feel well at least we acknowledged a wrong..at least we were trying to influence a better outcome, at least we involved ourselves and didn't turn our heads and ignore yet another one of the world's atrocities. I may not always agree with the means we attempted to encourage change...but I certainly am not going to criticize our actual care, concern and involvement for pursuing democracy in the world.
You have yet to explain to me how we are better served , as in all of us not just your own conscience, by ignoring the plight of those living in the Congo, or North Korea, or Burma. Personally I wish my country would send some people over there to shake hands and bring the world's attentions to these areas...one thing the United States without question has is the ultimate power to get everyone discussing international issues.

What wrong were we acknowledging in Iraq when we armed Saddam against Iran? What "better outcome" did we create?

Yep, we surely did involve ourselves, arming and using one dictator to try and defeat a regime we didn't like. And yet, Iran is still a pain in our backside. Not to mention the fact that we did ignore atrocities committed by Saddam against not only the Iranians, but against his own people as well.

I'm not going to criticize our care or concern either. I certainly am going to criticize our involvement when that involvement includes placing cash and arms into the hands of people that would just as soon kill us as work with us, depending on what day of the week it is.