What I am wary of, however, are those who might expect the kind of action proposed by McCain and Smith to result in positive change insofar as the short-term interests of the US are concerned. The fact is, the effect may be a negative one from a purely selfish US-centric point of view. And, truth be told, things could get even uglier inside Uzbekistan as well. Time will tell.

People need to be realistic about how much worse things couold get in the short term. The bright side, should the US take a stand on the side of human rights, government accountability, etc., is that there’s a chance the Uzbek people will reject the despotism model of government they have for so long been willing to accept in exchange for security.

Rustam, I hope you’re right about the younger generation.

In Iran, the perception was that the Cold War would not end in the foreseeable future. Now, the world has come to understand that changes do happen.

Rustam said “This is the America that Uzbekistan, its people have been waiting for a long long time!!!” If this is true, and one believes that Karimov is not immortal, then it may be strategically smarter for the U.S. to take a consistent position with moral underpinnings.

I don’t think the point right now is to force Karimov back into our loving embrace. I think the die is cast and Karimov has chosen his backers in Russia and China for the remainder of his presidency.
Unless we make our carrots ridiculously big and juicy (which would make America look like even bigger human-rights/democracy hypocrites in the world), I don’t think there’s any way that Karimov is going to believe that the West is a better guaranteer of the security of his regime than Russia and China.
I think the point of these targeted sanctions (along with providing McCain some airtime) is to cause consternation amongst the political elites in Tashkent.

Russia and China might be fine allies, but how many of the elites send their kids to America or Europe (using money that is stolen from the Uzbek people)? How many go there for vacations or medical checks? Well, this will clearly make things uncomfortable for them. Some will question the course they are on.

Jonathan, as far as your mother in-law (I can relate… man that can be frustrating), just tell her that these are targeted sactions, and shouldn’t directly affect the Uzbek people.

Regarding Dolkun’s idea:
The Iran situation was laden with Cold War fears. US policy makers were afraid that anyone other then their man the Shah would take away our cheap access to Iranian oil and side with the USSR. (Don’t forget there was a fairly robust Communist/Socialist movement in Tehran back in the day.)

Anyway, the fact is that Iran did produce a popularly elected leader (Musaddiq/Mossadegh), but after he led a move to nationalize Iran’s oil industry and take control of the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, he was promptly removed by a CIA/British operation and the Shah was reinstated. So that was that. Maybe if the US and Britain hadn’t been so concerned with their own short-term interests the shah’s radical cleric successors might have toned down the whole “Death to America” thing.

I wonder: What is the point of sanctions against Karimov? Are we just lashing out in frustration here? McCain’s comments seem to indicate he wants to take action based on principle. That’s nice. I hope it works. But…

IMHO, sanctions, etc., are hardly going to drive him back into our loving arms. If anything, they’ll push him closer toward China and Russia. And then I’ll have to listen to my mother-in-law tell me how evil and mean-spirited America is and how Karimov is just trying to keep the country stablized so she and the other hard-working people of Uzbekistan can live and work in peace.

Rustam, I know a few young people (especially in the big cities) who feel the way you do about IAK and his cronies, but I’m afraid that most “average” people in Uzbekistan are OK with things as they are, just as long as they can keep their private gardens and afford to buy bread, sugar and oil.

1. Backing for strategic interests is not a unique thing nor exclusively American. It’s the reality of what States do. I’m not saying it’s the morally right thing, but the reality. There’s always the “greatest good” argument (which I am well aware really diminishes the individual).

2. Winning or reforming with some carrots might have more merit than sticks at this point. Is it even plausible that sanctions from the west would have behavior altering impact especially when Russia or China are in the neighborhood? just some thoughts…

It may be that if the sanctions take effect that it will hasten the end of the regime, and there will be many who will applaud that as an end in itself. But there doesn’t seem to be any appealing substitute (and there are some -to a Western liberal democratic eye – to be even less appealing). I see Uzbekistan’s geo-political role as being absolutely crucial to the West, and our recent track-record in Afghanistan and Iraq of inducing regime-collapse as opposed to regime-change makes it all the more important that we are diplomatically sensitive.

I do not mean to advance a “better-the-devil-you-know” argument. I simply don’t think it is realistic that sanctions are going to persuade the Karimov regime to adopt more open government and promoted human rights (and a cynic might suggest that they are not supposed to). I do think, however, that some form of limited engagement might.