You are beating a dead horse, and you’re not going to make it any deader. No one here is talking about American intervention in Uzbekistan, no one is talking about NGOs overthrowing the government (how would that happen exactly?) and putting some kind of moderate Islamic party in place in Uzbekistan.

You have been harping on this for months, and I don’t understand why. I cannot understand what your arguements about the Shah of Iran or the threat of extremism actually have to do at all with very basic human rights for people living in Uzbekistan.

I know you don’t talk to me anymore, and I don’t really care, but you seem to think that I am advocating something that clearly I am not (please note that above I wrote an entire diatribe about how NGOs have no place in political interventions) and that the rest of us are arguing for something we are not.

Uzari answered your earlier discussion with a really strong point–that this reform movement you hope he could be a part of would be crushed by the government you are defending (and if you’re not defending it, you sure fooled me, and I think everyone else participating in not only this discussion but pretty much all of them we have had in the last year) and using the very tactics you are defending.

I thought that your answer to his very valid point was condescending and kind of rude, and moreover it didn’t seem to have anything to do with the discussion we are/were having.

You know, I don’t mean to make an enemy out of you or anything, and I know we very rarely agree on anything so you are probably going to take this wrong, but I think you’re being kind of condescending in general in your posts in this discussion and I don’t think you’re really responding to the points that they are making.

That’s all I’m gonna say, I guess this discussion is pretty much over, but if I was either Pulatov or Uzari, I would not be encouraged to continue posting my opinions on here based on the responses that you are posting. That’s all I’m gonna say. I’m not picking a fight, if you want to shoot me back an angry response, that’s your business, but I’m not going to drag this out.

It’s interesting how you’ve backed off all your assertions and ignored all my arguments and questions, and then changed the topic to US intervention. I don’t recall that point ever coming up in this thread.

I think this started with your insulting response to Pulatov, and all the posts following have been based on the statements you made.

A couple points, though I don’t expect that you’ll address them.

Your reference to NGOs and Iran is unclear and unrelated. You reference a US embassy document that probably has nothing to do with NGOs, though one can’t tell from your post. I am unfamiliar with the details of the situation, but I am certain that human rights groups condemned the Shah’s torturing of dissidents and made no recommendations about the political system. If you were familiar with organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, you would know that’s how they work without exception. Likewise, in Uzbekistan, HRW reports have focused on documenting human rights abuses committed by the Karimov regime. They have not ‘advocated the empowerment of moderate Islamist forces’ nor anything remotely of the sort.

Last – regardless of your statement to the contrary, you have defended Karimov. You have taken the position in this thread and others that the acts his regime commits are justified in the fight against terrorism. Your first post in this thread confirmed that position, when you called Pulatov ‘dangerous’ for suggesting that Karimov’s stated position against terrorism was a red herring. Instead of offering evidence to support this assertion, you simply called the writer names and maligned his intelligence. That *is* support for Karimov.

I’m not defending Karimov. I don’t care one way or the other about him. I will agree with every criticism you can make of the current situation.

Where I differ is in the view that any justification for violence can improve things. In my opinion, it will only make things worse. First, because it cannot succeed–Russia and China will see to it, no matter what the US and EU do, because they are much closer. So, to encourage it is not in the interests of Uzbekistan. Believe it or not, things can get worse.

I am old enough to remember what happened to the Shah of Iran. I have heard the NGO arguments in that context, which led to the fall of the Shah–and a tragic fate for Iran. You can look on the web and read captured US embassy documents advocating the empowerment of moderate Islamist forces as an alternative to the Shah. The result has been a nightmare for the world as well as the Iranian people, in my opinion. There is a wonderful book called “Teaching Lolita in Teheran” by Azar Nafisi that tells this story from the inside.

I think the best thing the US can do right now is to let the Uzbeks sort things out for themselves.

It really is shocking to what lengths you will go to defend the Karimov regime. I can’t say I understand the motivation behind this, and knowing that you have lived in Uzbekistan, I find it interesting that you were never exposed to the daily struggles of Uzbeks which create the kind of sentiment expressed by Pulatov. However, I am glad that you post here, because it makes for stirring debate.

First, the societies you note above are all liberal democracies to some extent or another. All permit their citzens some form of pressure valve to relieve frustration and express discontent. While in any society, there will be groups at the fringes bent on violence, in democracies, the vast majority of debate is forced into a civilized public forum. If your property is randomly confiscated by police, you file a suit in an objective and independent court. If you disagree with a law passed by parliament, you write to your representative and your local newspaper.

None of these opportunities exist in Uzbekistan, where any minute criticism of state power is punished severely. I have asked this before, and others have phrased it differently, but the question is – is there *no* connection between this stranglehold on society and a desire on the part of some to resort to violent means? Do you believe that the stifling grip Karimov’s clan has on the economy has no effect on the lack of opportunities for young people and the subsequent attraction for some to extremist groups?

It would be great if you would address these questions directly. I asked them before in different form, as have others, but you evaded them. Saying that democracies have terrorist movements, too, and therefore there is no relation between type of government and a terrorist threat is disingenious. In the societies you cited, the same kinds of connections cannot be said to exist. There is no excuse for a resort to violence, when you could safely express your opinion otherwise. In Uzbekistan, there is quite clearly, no safe avenue for expressing discontent.

It’s interesting how people like you and Starr manage to work criticism of NGOs into your arguments. Be clear on this: human rights NGOs work to hold governments to their human rights obligations. It is *governments* that are responsible for guaranteeing their citizens human rights. In fact, the Uzbek constitution so states about the government of Uzbekistan. Violations of human rights – unlawful arrest, torture, and forced confessions – only help create an atmosphere in which terrorism thrives. People see their government as cruel, arbitrary and violent, and that civilized means are of no use in responding to them. This again gives terrorism appeal. Human rights groups which document and illuminate such abuses, and force governments to answer for them publicly, are doing far more to bring security to citizens of countries like Uzbekistan than the governments who use these barbarian methods against their own citizens.

I think all of us who’ve been to Uzbekistan and care about its people would like to see it move in the direction of a South Korea or Singapore. That is impossible under this type of government, which is doing the opposite of what those governments did. The Uzbek government does not encourage innovation, but stifles it. The Uzbek government does not create a foundation for entrepreneurship, but crushes it. The Uzbek government does not allow space for human development, but restricts it.

At the end, you bring up the Young Turks movement. We’d all like to see a Young Uzbeks movement. Interesting though, that you know so well that any organized movement aimed at progressive change would be immediately seen as a threat and crushed. Look what happened to the almost completely unthreatening and innocuous Sunshine movement. What does this suggestion mean in this context? You have contradicted yourself. A ‘Young Uzbeks’ movement is a terrorist movement in the eyes and rhetoric of this government, and you are surely aware of that.

Last, and most disheartening, is your offense to the original writer, as was expressed in a previous comment. As pointed out, he risked his life to post a well thought-out, reasoned expression of how educated people feel in the atmosphere created by Karimov. And you reacted by citing a vague reference to terrorism, calling him ‘dangerous’, and saying that ‘he doesn’t know what he is talking about’. Amazing that he is likely just the ‘Young Uzbek’ you are talking about, and this is the response he elicits from you.

Or does your Young Uzbek movement only laud the current government? Then where does that get us?

I’m not an expert on extremism, but certainly can say that it is not only found in Uzbekistan–it is also found in Britain, France, Germany, Israel, the Phillippines, and the USA–all democracies. So I don’t accept the theory that Karimov’s repression creates terrorists. I think they’d be in Uzbekistan whatever the form of government (except if there were a real Stalinist leader, like Turkmenbashi).

Crushing extremist movements is not the same as crushing dissent, but unfortunately, the extremists actually help Karimov stay in power by threatening violence.

Yes, the economy is terrible. Yes, the government is corrupt. Yes, Uzbeks deserve better.

The question is, how to get from where Uzbekistan is right now to where Uzbeks might like to be–as rich and modern as China, S. Korea, Taiwan, Singapore.

The danger is of an explosion leading to civil war, or an invasion. The problem is that many other countries–not just the United States–are involved in Uzbekistan. For example, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Israel, Russia, Turkey, Afghanistan, Russia, India, Pakistan, and the EU countries, not to mention Central Asian neighbors. For some, Uzbekistan is a political football, or a chip in an economic poker game.

Then there are the NGOs, which have a partial view of human rights, one that criticizes governments–but does not take threates to the life and limbs of ordinary citizens from terrorism seriously.

We have had terrorism in the US, recently and in our distant past. We reacted to it by crushing the terrorists–beginning with George Washington stamping out the so-called “Whiskey Rebellion”–if they could not be co-opted or bought off.

If you have a better alternative, I would be grateful if you could bring it about for the benefit of Uzbekistan. I always thought my students could be part of a “Young Turk” generation that might do for Uzbekistan what Ataturk’s generation did for Turkey. Perhaps you will be one of the leaders, of this “Young Uzbek” movement…

About NGOs–I don’t think it’s their place to incite counter-government activity. Especially in light of how sensivive that topic has become (cf the bill sitting in Russia’s duma right now) I think it’s very important that all non-political NGOs eschew any semblence of political activity, particularly in Uzbekistan.
There are dramatic humanitarian needs that no one else is going to take care of, and if they lose their ability to work in the country, the people they help will be left alone with no one at all to help them.

I don’t have a good answer about how to help people organize a non-violent resistence to the government or policies that they don’t like. Education, I guess, is a big one–and NGOs can have a role in educating people about civil society and the role they can take in it—but I think anyone playing this role has to be very, very careful about not appearing to incite anyone against Karimov specifically.

In truth, I’m working on my graduate school statement right now explaining why I want to enter the diplomatic service and work on a government-to-government level because I just don’t see NGOs as a viable way to put pressure on a government to change. As some Russian politicians have put it in defense of the bill they are debating right now, we resent it when other countries set up organizations on our own turf and attempt to influence our policy, and we have banned or closed some organizations that we feel are working against our government (or our system of government in general). It’s a lot to ask a country to register and respect an organization that is actively working to undermine that goverment’s ability to govern, no matter how right the criticism is.

Of course, this all takes on a new flavor when that criticism means simply asking a government that says it’s democratic to be democratic, asking a government that derives its legal authority from a constitution that guarantees all kinds of basic freedoms and human rights to actually abide by that constitution.

***

As to the question of whether or not islamic extremism in Uzbekistan is a buga-whatsit invented by the Karimov government, I don’t think you were interperting the statement correctly, Laurance. I don’t think our friend from Tashkent meant at all to say that religious extermism never existed in Uzbekistan, so you’re calling him a liar for something he didn’t say, constructing a straw-man arguement that’s easy to defeat but doesn’t have much correlation to what the person actually said.

And, you know, this person (whoever he is) risked his fucking life by publishing this statement (literally, so let’s evaluate that a little bit while we talk about whether dictatorships like this are ever justified), while you and I sit here in America
and can argue about this, so I think the least we could do, no matter what we think of his arguements, is show him a little bit more respect.

Many, many good people who oppose the Karimov government solely on the grounds of asking them to respect basic human rights and abide by the contitution that is in fact the law of the land in Uzbekistan (and abide by other international laws) are sitting under house arrest now, and have been for months. None of them are able to speak their mind, none of them are able to even earn a living to support their families.

It’s not a question about whether or not religious extremism exists, it’s a question of whether or not that would ever justify the behavior of the government as it is now. I don’t believe it would.

So, professor Pulatov, please know that you do have friends here, we respect very much the risks you are taking by speaking your mind, and we will always be glad to hear from you in the future–and I hope Laurence can agree with this as well no matter what things he might disagree with us on.