Redstate

I'm glad it's not me in charge of setting US policy there.  Nothing we can do there will tip the balance in favor of good, I believe.  Yet sitting on the sidelines seems wrong also.  Obviously, other countries further along in the quest for self-rule give us good options to choose from -- Ukraine, Lebanon, Iran -- even Egypt (of all places!!!!) appears to have something of a noisy freedom-loving opposition that we can support and nurture.

As far as Uzbekistan, is there ANY kind of groundswell that we can work with, can we support (or establish?) a rogue truth-telling underground press or blogosphere?  Because IMHO, the free flow of truthful information is the beginning of an organized movement for freedom.  I believe that the minute Gorby gave Tass a little breathing room to speak truth, the USSR was doomed.  And until there is a viable freedom-loving popular movement there, you are on the money in stating that it's pointless to support one thug party over another.

We're stuck with Karimov.

Let us not forget that the Shah wasn't such a hot character either, but he was one heck of a lot better than the Ayatollah. And you can bet that if Karimov falls, Uzbekistan will immediately become a place that is a whole lot less interested in our interests.

to be sure.

Though I don't see how we advance the cause of liberty or our national interests by turning the place over to the islamofascists.

Friends with a checkered past are the best you can do.

This is one such case.  Putin, Karimov, and some others are probably the best we can do.  There are times you need to look the other way.

Those who want regime change, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, basically want freedom [emphasis from E Pluribus Unum].

...because your link to Tacitus describing HT desribes them as the worst-of-the-worst sharia-installing Al Queda backing fundamentalists.

...doing your best to foment a freedom-loving groundswell that can ultimately produce a better option in a few years.

says his opponents are Islamic extremists does not make it so.  Most reports seem to indicate that the protests were started because of the imprisonment of moderate businessman, not extremists.  Without a doubt, the vast majority of deaths (upwards of 1000 by some estimates) were caused by security forces firing indiscriminately into crowds.  

Karimov is almost certainly using the spector of "Islamic extremists" as an excuse to stifle any meaningful reform.  Our protests were weak and way too late.

Freedom House is wrong.

in the Freedom House Report that contradicts my observations.  Quite the contrary.  

The Freedom House report states [t]he government exercises strict control over Islamic worship, including the content of imams' sermons, and is suspicious and intolerant of followers of Muslim organizations not sanctioned by the state. Many members of such groups have been arrested or imprisoned on charges of anti-constitutional activities, often under the pretext of the government's fight against militant Islamists.  I think that supports my argument rather well.

who has all the legitimacy now.

Not that he is legitimate in western terms, but he controls the executive functions in a unitary kind of way, no?

The Islamfascists can come in, but they won't have a monolithic legitimacy among the forces of violence.  So went Afghanistan.

by at least not sending rendered prisoners to them?

http://washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050517-054643-5879r.htm

Uzbekistan is also said to be one of the countries used by Washington in the so-called renditions program: transferring terrorist suspects to countries where interrogation methods are more permissive than they are in the United States. Other countries said to be included in the program are Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Last year Human Rights Watch reported that Uzbek security forces were carrying out a campaign of torture and intimidation against Muslims. But the use of torture is not new in Uzbekistan. It was in the Jaslik prison in Tashkent that two dissidents, Muzafar Avazov and Husnidin Alimov, were boiled to death in 2002.

...I linked to Freedom House, which described the opposition as seeking a sharia-style government.  Think Sudan.

I've been against extraordinary rendition for a while.

What about Haiti; what did we do there?  What about U.S government opposition to Venezuela's elected leader?  

Many of the countries that supported the U.S. in the war went against there population's desires.  That is at best Republic; it is not Democracy.

But if "road movie to Berlin" is another road to Godwin's Law, never mind, not worth a response.

...Karimov's brand of Islam in Uzbekistan is immediately described as a "Wahhabi" and jailed. This is one of the main problems with supporting Uzbekistan in the GWOT...we cannot trust that they are locking up only actual dangerous people. The HT is not a group that I want to see in power, but the Karimov regime ascribes terrorist actions to anyone found with HT literature in their home, locks them up, tortures them, and generally punishes their families as well. I wouldn't be suprise if HT turns more and more into an actual violent organization, a case of perception molding reality. As rotwang pointed out, this is not limited only to those who support the HT; dissidents of all stripes are rounded up.

I truly believe that with Uzbekistan, realist and liberal internationalist points of view can converge. Supporting Uzbekistan's heavy-handed repression truly will create more terrorism - much more than in other repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia. In the very short term, this will create an untenable security situation in the powder kit that is Central Asia.

This is not to say that terrorism in Central Asia is not a problem - the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and various affiliates are extremely dangerous. However, the Karimov regime has taken to linking all Islamic dissidents to the IMU and is justifying its continued stranglehold on the country with its security situation.

The International Crisis Group is a great resource; here are some of their Central Asia articles.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=2988&l=1

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=3469

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=2983&l=1

position of favoring one tyranny over another. But the idea that we should anyway acquiesce or assist in a process that results in a new Iran or new Taliban strikes me as incredibly boneheaded.

you simply did not bother reading the report. Period.

here, of course, is that he's wrong.

Given the nature of the opposition and the fact that Uzbeks made up a significant portion of the al Qaeda 55 Brigade in Afghanistan, I'd be very circumspect about downplaying the opposition. This is not to doubt that he runs a totalitarian state but I don't see where the opposition here gives us much hope for a change in anything but the guy at the top.

For those who don't remember it, go to TIME and NEWSWEEK and read the fawning profiles of Khomeini in 1978.

Well, I'm all broke up about al-Qaeda terrorists' rights.

When the heck are the ACLU and Amnesty International going to give a crap about the rights of the people these thugs want to maim and kill?

And this is where we'll probably agree to disagree - I believe that supporting Uzbekistan's repressive regime is much worse than allowing them to round up HT members without evidence, regardless of the fact that they're probably "bad guys". This is where Mr. Cella and I usually butt heads - I think in the long term, supporting democratic policies is more beneficial than supporting repressive ones. Ironically, I'm not a liberal internationalist; I'm an isolationist first (oh yes, Pat Buchanan and I actually agree on something), and a realist second...and the realist in me is looking at long term cost-benefit as opposed to short term.

It mentions the activity by extremist sects but says nothing about their level of support.  The reports overall tone is one that the government is using Muslim extremism as a pretense to suppress the opposition.  

Taking a few lines out of the report to justify the continued support of a brutal dictator is the height of hypocracy.  Especially when most of the claims that an extremist islamic government is the alternative are the justification used by the Dicatator himself.

The report spells out the aims of one of the main opposition groups.

To make the mistake we made with Iran.  We thought that Ayatollah Khomeni was a good guy.

Wrong.

If we ditch Karimov, what message does that send to other people who are supporting us in the war on terror?  I do not think we should abandon friends because Amensty International and Human Rights Watch constantly carp about them.

If they are helping us out against our enemies, look the other way.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

support people who boil their political opponents alive?  I think that's a pretty good message to send to the other people who are supporting us in the war on terror.  Because from where I stand it looks like there isn't a whole lot of difference between Karimov and the terrorists.

And the mistake we made with Iran was not that we thought Khomeni was a good guy but that we thought the Shah was a good guy.  When he was overthrown the only viable opposition left were extremists (because he had killed or radicalized all the moderate opposition).

I did not select a good subject.

I was not eluding to Godwin's Law.  I was thinking more like "Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue," and I do not recall who said that.  

This is all I could find on the radical islamic group in the report:

Authorities have targeted members of the banned Hizb-ut-Tahrir (Islamic Party of Liberation), an international movement calling for the creation of an Islamic caliphate throughout the Muslim world. Suspected members have been forced to give confessions under torture, and their family members have been subjected to interrogation, arrest, and extortion.

That's it, nothing about how strong the movement is or how many members it has but lots about harrassment of ordinary merchants, university professors, union members, and just every day people.  Sounds more like "islamic extremism" is being used as a crutch to justify oppression.

I don't want the United States to support Karimov, but I've haven't seen good reasons to support his opposition.  This is one of those situations where you work with the barbaric dictator that you have.  You push him to change.  Carrots and sticks.

Well it is a kind of election when people get to vote, but when one of the candidates gets to dictate the vote totals it isn't a meaningful election-- well Jimmy Carter thinks so, but Jimmy Carter thinks any anti-american was elected no matter how he got to power.

Elections do not necessarily mitigate against tyranny.  The US should always fight tyranny no matter how popular or unpopular.

The Talibans were indigenous to Afghanistan and were typical religious conservative thugs.  There was nothing good about them or their gender and religious apartheid policies.  They failed, ultimately, to maintain a unity of force and repression which did allow us to unseat them with relative ease.  That we waited until after a foreign group was allowed to fester there for years doesn't mean they couldn't have been beaten sooner.  

The Alqaedas are pro-tech religious fascists who advocated continual jihad.  It was really just a co-incidence that they were living in the same country.. well that is too weak a word... it was within the overall worldview of the Talibans to shelter co-religionsist jihadists of any kind, pro or anti- tech, probably of whatever subsect of islam as well.  Alqaeda did not exist organically in Afghanistan but relied extensively, as it likely still does, on foreign finance.  It is unlikely that any country will openly support a terror exporting organization like Alqaeda regardless of their true inclinations.

The Iranians are more similar to the Alqaedas in that they are outward-looking, violent, modern revolutionaries, and I agree, the US should not foster the creation of another Iran.  However, I think that the creation of Iran was a fairly unique event in that the anti-government forces were funneled into the religious organizations by ruthless and efficient ancien regime secret police.  Further Iran controlled extensive resources as well as a well educated cosmopolitan population who could leverage those resources into international co-operation.  So that Revolutionary Iran began with the resources that a revolution in Uzbekistan would not have.  Whereas Iran is able to generate cash to finance terror abroad and support an offensive military build-up,  

Uzbekistan in its current incarnation has support from the US and the USSR as well as PRC and depriving the Uzbeki goons of resources is possible.  Depriving Uzbekistan of its current leadership would provide the possibility of more humane government as well as the probability of divided rule by either regional warlords or diversefied leadership of the current terror organizations and the rivalries these would create.

Rivalries within the terror structure, whether Islamofascits, Uzbeckifascists, or whatever, would better allow free democratic opposition and non-state social organisations to form.  Althought the PRC would probably continue to provide some support, depriving Uzbekistan of ex-Soviet support would be a great chance for freedom.

I think the same is true of Sudan and other tyrannical regimes.  However bad they are and however bad their principal opponents are, the US should support change because change undermines the legitimacy of tyrannts wherever they come from, and it is the first step to free democratic reform.  It is possible to wait, to provide luke-warm support, or to stand above the conflict and wait for "good democrats" to come into opposition with tyrannts, but this has most often worked in places like the Phillipines were the authority of the leader was based on conservative or reactionary principles, and not on progressive (pro-social change) principles.

To what degree is the power structure in Uzbekistan based on holding on to the Soviet class system and to what degree is its legitimacy based on the ability of the police/militia to steal from the people and to what degree to the current government forces align themselves with Islam?  I don't know those answers, but I think without them we should consider whether the situation would be worse without change or with any change at all.  

In short, ( yeah too late ) I don't know that regime change now is a great idea, but I don't see that enough study has been done to know this, and I don't think it should be rejected because of the possibility of short-term losses.

with you in principle. Where I think we part is that I think it is spectacularly stupid to change a regime for the sake of change. That is the option available to us in Uzbekistan under all but the most exotic readings of the situation.

This is not Georgia or the Ukraine. There is no democratically inclined opposition. Admittedly, this is due in part to the efforts of the regime. But whatever the reason for its absence, it is absent.

The question is can we influence the regime? I don't know that we can. It seems like their immediate neighbors in China and Russia are supportive and the money/aid they will receive from those sources far outweighs anything we can deliver. The best we offer is the opportunity for the Uzbeks to play us against the Russians and Chinese.

So the next question becomes do we want to wash our hands of that country and forego all possible influence? In my mind a good case can be made in either direction.

But the worst possible solution is to try to force a regime change that will, right now, inevitably result in a new terrorist state and inevitably result in either us or the Chinese intervening militarily.