AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Uzbekistan's warning to the US
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Stratfor Wrote:The Uzbek government has decided to restrict the United States' use of the Khanabad-Karshi base in southern Uzbekistan in response to U.S. criticism over the way Tashkent handled May's outbreak of violence in Andijan. If strained ties deteriorate to the point that the United States leaves the base, Washington will be surrendering strategic interests in Uzbekistan and Central Asia as a whole.

This was also reported by Russian papers yesterday; the "official" cause is that C-17 damaged the runway, not originally designed to accomodate heavy planes.

The real cause if of course the recent "pro-democracy" drive by Bush, which is now threatening to eliminate the US presense in Central Asia entirely (Uzbekistan is the strongest player in the region).
Do you have a link Michael?
John L Wrote:Do you have a link Michael?

Tis Stratfor, link would not help you.
Well don't be selfish, let us have all of it to read. Wink1
The immediate trigger was Rice' request for an open investigation of the recent riots -- yesterday.

APN article (Russian)

Rice is a baaad mistake...
mv Wrote:Rice is a baaad mistake...

Please elaborate.
MV,

Rice is speaking with the President's confidence,this policy is BUSH's,not just Rice's.

However,I am not sure I understand Uzbekistan yet. Karimov is a tyrant from the old Soviet days. Stratfor has said a while back they felt Karimov would hold down revolt at the same time pressure will internally build.

I think the Bush doctrine has declared that we will follow the Vox Populi even when it conflicts with our policies,feeling that LONG TERM the Vox will come better to appreciate America and less interested in jihad against us,that is Bush's view. It's what drives US policy,we cannot contradict it by supporting Karimov after the recent massacres,IMO.
Palladin Wrote:MV,

Rice is speaking with the President's confidence,this policy is BUSH's,not just Rice's.

Given that Bush' switch toward the Greater Democracy drive occurred with the appointment of Rice, I'm chosing her as the symbol of everything that is wrong with Bush...

Quote: However,I am not sure I understand Uzbekistan yet. Karimov is a tyrant from the old Soviet days. Stratfor has said a while back they felt Karimov would hold down revolt at the same time pressure will internally build.

Of course Karimov is a typical dictator. This is not the issue: we have a plenty of dictators among our friends, and even add more: Quadaffi is a nice example of a recent addition.

Quote: I think the Bush doctrine has declared that we will follow the Vox Populi even when it conflicts with our policies,feeling that LONG TERM the Vox will come better to appreciate America and less interested in jihad against us,that is Bush's view. It's what drives US policy,we cannot contradict it by supporting Karimov after the recent massacres,IMO.

Karimov did an excellent job of suppressing local Islamists; any kind of "democratic revolution" would make them stronger; but we are probably not that concerned about WOT/AQ issues anyway anymore.

As for the so-called "Bush doctrine": when we see Bush improving relations with *democratic* France, Germany and Iran and putting a minimal effort into overthrowing non-democratic Saudis, Mugabe, and "That general"; when we see Bush stopping his balancing act between *democratic* India and *dictatorial Pakistan*, between *democratic Israel* and *terrorist* Pals, that day we should believe that Bush is sincere and has a doctrine.

That day we should be able to classify Bush as moral and insane.

Today, Bush classifies as insane only: he inflicts damage in the name of a doctrine he does not even follow.
isn't the point who needs who more?

if we leave, how much $$$ do we take with us?

would this affect his stature at all, his ability to keep power?

for one, i will say outright, i would rather have a bloody Fascist in office, than a bloody Mullah, so i appreciate the effort he has made to keep his govt Secular...

however, there is a trick to this that if sprung correctly, we could trap many Muslims in this region into supporting us if it appears we helped them achieve "independence"...
Quote:if we leave, how much $$$ do we take with us?

A very interesting question.

World Socialiast Site claims $500 ?!

Telegraph, on Oct 14, 2001 claimed that the US is pumping large amount of dollars into Central Asia in preparation for WoT.
Quote:Senior Washington officials admit that American cash, some of which is already pumping into the dusty cities of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, is effectively payment in advance for the services to be rendered over the next few months in the anti-terrorist campaign.

One month after 9/11? Things move really quickly....or were prepared in advance.

It seems that the amount went down over the last two years, but ultimately, the amount simply does not matter for Karimov: it is the choice between keeping power and $, and power trumps. ($ are hard to keep when you are exiled or dead.)

Besides, the Chinese may be willing to bid higher, and Karimov is talking to them already.
IMHO americans don't need base in Uzbekistan now, when the war in Afghanistan is over. There are bases in Kirghizia and Afghanistan. And Rice need some medicine to stimulate brain activity. In fact she supports islamism.
Chinese know that Uzb. bases are to contain them, not for Afg. That's why they try to outbid the US.
MV,


I disgaree that Bush decided to come out for VoxPopuli when Rice was appointed,he had framed those policies under Powell's days and the intellectual logic was supplied by the Israeli minister from Russia who wrote the half famous book on the subject.

Bush made that decision before he invaded Iraq. It's 1 of the driving reasons he invaded Iraq,IMO.

You are going to find,as we did with Reagan,that the most radical person in Bush's administration is BUSH,not his advisors.

Concerning your complaints about why Bush hasn't invaded or coerced several non democratic nations,I would posit that you expect too much of America. We are having a very difficult time with current conflict,it is not within our ability to cause an upheaval where the people are not prepared for it anyway.

Example of what I mean,MV. Bush is talking up democracy in Egypt. The people want it there,with some fears about Islamists as well. So,we see Mubarak slowly loosening his grips and eventually the vox populi will rule there,IMO.

Libya on the other hand,Bush may say what he pleases,but it seems to me the Libyan people are not prepared to step up to the plate and force it as the Lebanese did,but the Syrians have not.

Bush nor America are miracle workers,it takes the locals as well and it is my opinion that WHEN the locals,such as in Ukraine ,Uzbekistan or Egpyt and Lebanon show a propensity to desire democracy,Bush will talk it up and try and cause it to happen.

Pretty much,that's all we can do is offer moral support,we cannot make the Syrians be as bold as the Lebanese,nor can we cause Syria or Libya's internal security types to NOT do what Karimov did,but IF the people rise,we cannot ever again be seen as supporting the anti democratic side.

Not in Uzbekistan or Mexico. Those days are over. That's why Bush is siding with the people and Karimov is about to make us leave and I don't give a sh.it if he does and as well I do not care if all the protestors are Islamic nutcases,it's their nation.

I don't agree they are mostly nutcases,Stratfor feels it's a simple matter of Karimov losing support among the clans in Uzbekistan,they're fed up with Soviet rule.

Long term,siding with the people is our way,always has been,but we compromised that many times when confronted with Soviet Power. China will confront us,but our strength,IMO,will be siding with the people everytime. Cat's out of the bag.
Palladin Wrote:MV,


I disgaree that Bush decided to come out for VoxPopuli when Rice was appointed,he had framed those policies under Powell's days and the intellectual logic was supplied by the Israeli minister from Russia who wrote the half famous book on the subject.

Check the dates. The only event before the 2nd term is Georgia, and it was not seen by anyone as a part of a pattern. The "wave" of "democracy" is a clear attribute of the 2nd term.

I assume that the Israeli is Sharanski; it is doubtful that what he advocated has much connection with what Bush is doing now. -


Quote: Bush made that decision before he invaded Iraq. It's 1 of the driving reasons he invaded Iraq,IMO.

Nay, I doubt it was a reason at all. Democracy was not discussed much until the WMD rationale failed.

Quote: You are going to find,as we did with Reagan,that the most radical person in Bush's administration is BUSH,not his advisors.

Bush carries the ultimate responsibility, but it is the specialists -- and Rice is supposed to be one on Russia/CIS -- that are supposed to provide detailed knowledge. I remained unconvinced that Rice is up to the task, and unlike Bush, she can be fired quickly.

Incidentally, the world is actually more complicated now than twenty years ago.

Quote: Concerning your complaints about why Bush hasn't invaded or coerced several non democratic nations,I would posit that you expect too much of America. We are having a very difficult time with current conflict,it is not within our ability to cause an upheaval where the people are not prepared for it anyway.

I don't actually suggest invading Saudis, Paks, etc. I only point out that the Democracy drive is seriously misdirected (if Bush actually means it), or is simply stupid and fradulent (if Bush does not actually mean and uses the slogan to cover something entirely different).

Quote: Example of what I mean,MV. Bush is talking up democracy in Egypt. The people want it there,with some fears about Islamists as well. So,we see Mubarak slowly loosening his grips and eventually the vox populi will rule there,IMO.

The relaxation in Egypt is fairly slow and minimal, and so far non-threatening to the regime. Right now it fits into a simple model of Bush asking Mubarak for a little cosmetics...

Quote: Libya on the other hand,Bush may say what he pleases,but it seems to me the Libyan people are not prepared to step up to the plate and force it as the Lebanese did,but the Syrians have not.

So far it seems that the end result of Lebanese democracy will be legalization of Hizbollah, followed by legalization of Hamas.

Quote: Bush nor America are miracle workers,it takes the locals as well and it is my opinion that WHEN the locals,such as in Ukraine ,Uzbekistan or Egpyt and Lebanon show a propensity to desire democracy,Bush will talk it up and try and cause it to happen.

There is no indication that Uzbekistan or Egypt are capable of democracy at this time. In case of Ukraine, the new ruling class has very little to do with democracy (arrests and murders of political opponents); with Lebanon we don't know yet, but it surely does not look good.

Quote: Pretty much,that's all we can do is offer moral support,we cannot make the Syrians be as bold as the Lebanese,nor can we cause Syria or Libya's internal security types to NOT do what Karimov did,but IF the people rise,we cannot ever again be seen as supporting the anti democratic side.

Forget about Syrians. Give then a few decades, they may become democratic yet, right now they are not important.

Saudi Arabia. Pakistan. China. --- this should be the shopping list, if Bush is serious. These are the countries that are not democratic in any sense, that represent clear danger, and that are very likely to take advantage of any Bush' misstep.

Quote: I don't agree they are mostly nutcases,Stratfor feels it's a simple matter of Karimov losing support among the clans in Uzbekistan,they're fed up with Soviet rule.

You misread Stratfor. This is not about "Soviet rule", this is about the rule of Karimov's clan vs some other clan vs a war between clans. You cannot have a democracy when the society is still based on clans!!! At best, you can have a democratic confederation of tribes.


Quote:Long term,siding with the people is our way,always has been,....

Naive and outright dangerous in most places. Siding with the Afghani people, incidentally means allowing them to freely grow poppy, so we site with the warlords instead and keep them paid not to grow too much...

Quote:China will confront us,but our strength,IMO,will be siding with the people everytime. Cat's out of the bag.

A confrontation with China is possibly the best development. It will force the US to either concentrate on national interests and drop this democratic nonsense, or, alternatively, let China run the world. Losing Uzbekistan to the Chinese sphere of influence is a good start.
Wink1
India-Defense on SCO

Quote:The Bottom Line

After an initial period of halting growth, the S.C.O. has emerged as an alliance serving as an effective vehicle for Beijing's and Moscow's geopolitical aims.

Look for the alliance to continue to further the interests of the Moscow-Beijing axis as long as those two power centers are careful to maintain their accord and the regimes in Central Asia depend on the axis for political support. As the S.C.O. grows in strength, Washington's influence in Central Asia will diminish.

(full article at the link above)


Kyrgyzstan joined Uzbekistan today with the request to close US bases *eventually* (no precise date). Interestingly, Kyrgyzstan is supposed to be ruled by a new democratic government we installed...
Not today, but week ago, even before elections. It happened during conference of Shanghai organization. Vostok delo tonkoye.
AP: Russia Rejects Bullying Accusation by U.S.

Quote:MOSCOW - Russia on Friday rejected accusations by the top U.S. military officer that it, along with China, was trying to bully smaller Central Asian nations out of hosting U.S. troops fighting terrorism.

"We have been bewildered by the comments" of Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Foreign Ministry statement said.

"As is well-known, all decisions made within the framework of the SCO are consensus-based and reflect the collective opinion of all the member-countries," the ministry said.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a regional alliance led by China and Russia, last week called on the U.S. to set a date for withdrawing forces from bases in the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Asked by a reporter what he thought of the SCO's statement, Myers said: "Looks to me like two very large countries were trying to bully some smaller countries."

Yuck.

Russkies sound more credible than Myers here.

It is not bullying, it is the concerns of the Central Asian elites about the Greater Democracy Chimera
Update: Rumsfeld rushes to Kyrgyzstan.

Observe: not to Uzbekistan. Even if he can buy off the Kyrgyz leaders (this is likely the idea), it is not totally clear how supportable will be a base in the smallest/weakest country deep inside the region.
mv Wrote:Update: Rumsfeld rushes to Kyrgyzstan.
Even if he can buy off the Kyrgyz leaders (this is likely the idea)
It will be auction.
MV Let me see if I understand.
A. You don't like democracy
B. But you enjoy your ability to have your voice heard
C. You are a total racist
D. You distrust men and women of faith
E. You think our President and helpers are either dumb or hypocritical
F. You don't like family (clan)

Does that pretty much sum up your position on humankind?

If so, what in the world do you like?
Ken
Pages: 1 2 3 4