04 June 2005
Uzbekistan, Democracy, and the War on Terror
More than two years into a failed war in Iraq, very few people haven't seen this picture:
There he is, our SecDef, with his then buddy Saddam, both of them happy to have US arms on their way to Iraq. Sure, less than a decade later Saddam (using many of those weapons) would invade Kuwait and thus shift the whole geopolitical landscape of the region. And we all know how the story goes, leading us right into the quagmire where we find ourselves today.
But what about this picture?
Who is Rummy's new playmate? Did he get some new weapons, too? Perhaps he is working hard on behalf of Bush the Democratizer, spreading the seed of freedom throughout some region of the world? Or perhaps he is a great believer in free trade, ready to open his domestic market to US business?
Or perhaps not.
As many may know, he is Islam Abduganievich Karimov, President of Uzbekistan. A report by Human Rights Watch notes that Karimov is not exactly a democratically elected leader. Google his name and you will see that he is a brutal dictator, much like Saddam Hussein, who will stop at nothing to maintain his hold on power and to destroy any voice of opposition.
So why was Rummy meeting with him? The War on Terror, of course. Yes, Karimov, needing outside backing for his dictatorship, and also struggling to suppress Islamists within his own country, was happy to open up old Soviet airbases in his country for US use (particularly relating to combat in Afghanistan), and to become Bush's partner in the global war. Notice the convenient strategic location of Uzbekistan:
Only, a funny thing happened on the way to Iraq, and the earlier US casus belli of weapons of mass destruction evaporated, only to be replaced by "democratization of the region." But what of Dictator Karimov? Well, he's having some trouble lately, and he has responded as any dictator would: send in the troops, destroy the opposition, and hope the ship doesn't spring a leak.
Realizing the instability in the country, the US has pulled out all non-essential diplomatic staff. However, the Washington Post today unleashes a major article on behind the scenes negotiations for a permanent US base in the country. Recent events have thrown a bit of a wrench in the plan...
How can Bush preach Democracy for Some, Dictatorship for Others, if Freedom for All is the in thing for him this spring? The article notes some of the disputes between State and Defense on this issue, and you know what? There is plenty more to come. This is the problem with making up your justification for war as you go along. The War on Terror is not about freedom, it is not about democratization. The War in Iraq, which actually works counter to the War on Terror in that is has created a new "terrorist nest" conveniently located in the Middle East, is not about democratization either, and we all know that. The US is acting in its own strategic interest, and there is nothing wrong with that per se. However, with the combination of setting a new precedent for unilateralism and ever changing its justification for war, the Bush administration has created a dangerous new world order, in which countries can act anytime they feel threatened by "terrorists" (and we all know how far that definition can stretch). Furthermore, the concept of freedom and the reality of democracy has been cheapened to a level where, coming from the Mouth of Bush, they mean nothing.
The US has thus lost its position as a moral and ethical leader in the world. The new world order is left to be defined and reshaped at the whim of individual actors, and the US can say nothing. After all, as we have taken down an Old Dictator Friend, we have created a new one in Karimov. What will be our justification for overthrowing him once he turns on us?
¶ 10:24 AM
There he is, our SecDef, with his then buddy Saddam, both of them happy to have US arms on their way to Iraq. Sure, less than a decade later Saddam (using many of those weapons) would invade Kuwait and thus shift the whole geopolitical landscape of the region. And we all know how the story goes, leading us right into the quagmire where we find ourselves today.
But what about this picture?
Who is Rummy's new playmate? Did he get some new weapons, too? Perhaps he is working hard on behalf of Bush the Democratizer, spreading the seed of freedom throughout some region of the world? Or perhaps he is a great believer in free trade, ready to open his domestic market to US business?
Or perhaps not.
As many may know, he is Islam Abduganievich Karimov, President of Uzbekistan. A report by Human Rights Watch notes that Karimov is not exactly a democratically elected leader. Google his name and you will see that he is a brutal dictator, much like Saddam Hussein, who will stop at nothing to maintain his hold on power and to destroy any voice of opposition.
So why was Rummy meeting with him? The War on Terror, of course. Yes, Karimov, needing outside backing for his dictatorship, and also struggling to suppress Islamists within his own country, was happy to open up old Soviet airbases in his country for US use (particularly relating to combat in Afghanistan), and to become Bush's partner in the global war. Notice the convenient strategic location of Uzbekistan:
Only, a funny thing happened on the way to Iraq, and the earlier US casus belli of weapons of mass destruction evaporated, only to be replaced by "democratization of the region." But what of Dictator Karimov? Well, he's having some trouble lately, and he has responded as any dictator would: send in the troops, destroy the opposition, and hope the ship doesn't spring a leak.
Realizing the instability in the country, the US has pulled out all non-essential diplomatic staff. However, the Washington Post today unleashes a major article on behind the scenes negotiations for a permanent US base in the country. Recent events have thrown a bit of a wrench in the plan...
How can Bush preach Democracy for Some, Dictatorship for Others, if Freedom for All is the in thing for him this spring? The article notes some of the disputes between State and Defense on this issue, and you know what? There is plenty more to come. This is the problem with making up your justification for war as you go along. The War on Terror is not about freedom, it is not about democratization. The War in Iraq, which actually works counter to the War on Terror in that is has created a new "terrorist nest" conveniently located in the Middle East, is not about democratization either, and we all know that. The US is acting in its own strategic interest, and there is nothing wrong with that per se. However, with the combination of setting a new precedent for unilateralism and ever changing its justification for war, the Bush administration has created a dangerous new world order, in which countries can act anytime they feel threatened by "terrorists" (and we all know how far that definition can stretch). Furthermore, the concept of freedom and the reality of democracy has been cheapened to a level where, coming from the Mouth of Bush, they mean nothing.
The US has thus lost its position as a moral and ethical leader in the world. The new world order is left to be defined and reshaped at the whim of individual actors, and the US can say nothing. After all, as we have taken down an Old Dictator Friend, we have created a new one in Karimov. What will be our justification for overthrowing him once he turns on us?
¶ 10:24 AM
