Shorter Juan Cole: Islamism does not and has hardly ever existed in Uzbekistan. Bush went along with it because it helped the US set up a lily pad base at K2 which is all about securing Central Asian oil and gas for the United States.
His long post — mostly reheated arguments made long ago by others for whom Central Asia is not their main area of expertise — comes in response to Craig Murray’s address at the CESS conference that took place over the weekend. That gives a bit more context to the final paragraph of the post.
I hope his “Death in Samarkand” will wake some congressmen and senators up, and will provoke some sharp questioning and rethinking about the “War on Terror.” If this “War on Terror” leads to our praising Karimov for having elections in which the opposition cannot run, or to our swallowing false “intelligence” about vodka-swilling dissident Uzbek politicians being “terrorists” and “al-Qaeda”, then it is leading to the Death of our Republic.
I hate making the same points over and over again, so I will refrain from a thorough discussion of everything Cole has to say, but this final point is worth discussing.
First off, both in this closing paragraph as well as throughout the entire post, Cole fudges the timeline on Uzbekistan’s relationship with the West. He seems to be intentionally trying to create an impression that the relationship is ongoing. Criticism of Uzbekistan from the US after Andijon rarely gets mentioned by critics of the 2001-2005 relationship between the US and Uzbekistan unless it is criticized for having been too weak. That is a fair enough and debatable point, but to do as Cole and others before him have and fudge over that Uzbekistan and the US are fairly cold to one another now is sloppy at best and extremely intellectually dishonest at worst. Given that Cole uses Uzbekistan and Craig Murray’s points on the morality of the relationship between the West and Uzbekistan simply as a vehicle for bashing the Bush administration, I lean toward him being intellectually dishonest, though I do hope he is simply ignorant.
Second, saying that “vodka-swilling dissident Uzbek politicians” were named terrorists by Uzbek intelligence services baffles me. Only one possible name comes to name, but for the most part, those who are pinned with the questionable label of “Islamist terrorist” are not dissident politicians (of which there are very few within Uzbekistan) but regular citizens. But I do not think that Cole is too terribly interested in accuracy. Earlier in the piece, he says,
There is an academic industry in the United States, by the way, of alleging radical Muslim fundamentalism is a big problem in Uzbekistan. It is bunkum. The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was tied to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, had between 150 and 1,000 members at its height, and that was about it for Islamism in Uzbekistan.
There is an “academic industry” arguing that Uzbekistan has a “big problem” with Islamic fundamentalism? That is news to me. I think that the bulk of the voices out there assessing the threat takes the fairly uncontroversial position that the threat exists, but it is almost certainly not the existential threat the Uzbek government claims it is. Creating some fictional academic network* conspiring to back up the Uzbek government’s claims of being under fire from Islamists is as dishonest as saying 150-1,000 IMU members “was about it for Islamism in Uzbekistan.”
But back on the issue of dissidents being accused of being Islamist terrorists… Cole’s information apparently comes from Craig Murray’s speech.
Murray as UK ambassador began seeing CIA reports naming known al-Qaeda operatives who were prominent in Uzbekistan. But these turned out to be just run of the mill Uzbek politicians who were on the outs with Karimov.
I have not followed Murray’s speeches lately, nor have I read his book. This is the first time that I have heard this particular incarnation of the story. I have noticed changing details from Murray in the past, though I cannot be sure that this minor change is from him or Cole. Anyhow, if anyone can clarify this, it would be appreciated.
Anyhow, there is much more to Cole’s post worthy of lengthy comment. Namely, he makes the claim that US policy in Central Asia is all about oil — an argument that would probably be better made right now if Kazakhstan was the topic of conversation. There are, alas, only so many hours in the day, and I do hate to repeat myself too much. But, as I’ve said in the past, the oil and gas argument is one that does not fit the facts with perfect economy, yet is a favorite of many because it can be made for US actions in almost any part of the world without having to actually know too many of the finer details of the region to which it is being applied.
*There are academics who do support the Uzbek government’s claims, but calling them an “industry” stretches definitions to the breaking point.
PS — I totally forgot to give credit to “Kabul Resident” for sending me this. God knows I don’t normally subject myself to Juan Cole (or many other political bloggers, for that matter).
This post was written by...
Nathan Hamm – author of 2974 posts on Registan.net.
Nathan is the Founding Editor and Publisher of Registan.net, which he launched in 2003. He was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Uzbekistan 2000-2001 and received his MA in Central Asian Studies from the University of Washington in 2007. Since 2007, he has worked full-time as an analyst, consulting with private and government clients on Central Asian affairs, specializing in how socio-cultural and political factors shape risks and opportunities and how organizations can adjust their strategic and operational plans to account for these variables. Nathan is currently seeking research, analysis, and consulting opportunities. He can be contacted via Twitter or email.
For information on reproducing this article, see our Terms of Use
{ 6 comments }
I thought you would have to say something about Juan Cole’s foray into Central Asian politics. As another blogger has said, “he sometimes writes things without thinking or verifying them.” And you wouldn’t have to look very hard to find several other criticisms of Cole’s thinking on issues outside his very specific realm of expertise.
Having popped over to read Cole’s entire post, I can only agree that it is clear the limit of what he knows about Uzbekistan comes from Craig Murray. God, the last thing we need is a clone.
While Prof. Cole may not be an expert on Central Asia, I myself continue to take what he says seriously. Not everybody is perfect, especially when one ventures outside of his own specific field. That being said, Prof. Cole is an extremely valuable commentator on things Middle Eastern and Islamic, a must needed antecdote to the Richard Pipe’s of the world. (If you really want to read some scathing criticism of Cole, read Pipes.) If only Central Asia or the Caucasus had someone of his intellect and stature to provide an alternative viewpoint to events. I read his blog on a regular basis, and I encourage all who take the Middle East and Islamic world seriously to do the same. You may not agree with everyhting he says, but he is a voice that should be listened to.
Johnnie, there’s a huge difference between “less than perfect” and “out of one’s element.” Cole is the latter. That he is recognized as an expert on particular subjects does not mean to me that he is adding much to the discussion and must be listened to when he’s talking about Central Asia. (I similarly wouldn’t turn to him as a valuable voice on tax reform, for example.)
I’ve never read his academic work, but I’m sure it is fine. From what I’ve read of his blog though, he is a run-of-the-mill ideologue of only marginally better quality than others in that class that declines the farther he gets from his area of expertise.
Also, what do you mean by “alternative?” I take it that you don’t mean the dictionary meaning, but the “alternative media” usage meaning “left-liberal.” I can’t see it being the former because perspectives on Central Asian politics are far from monolithic. But then again, the latter is already out there as well, even if it is harder to find it in a semi well-known academic.
What I mean by alternative is what the average Joe might see or hear. Like by reading Ted Rall. Or the normal Central Asian experts that Congress listens to like Alcott, Starr, and Blank. Or watching Fox News, or CNN for that matter, with the usual Pipes’, Lewis’, Friedman’s and Shiarnsky’s. The same people that the White House and Congress listen to. Why is it that Prof. Cole, one of the top scholars on Iran and Iraq, is never on TV? Because he seriously debunks the Muslim=terrorist Israeli line? Because he points out that Ahmadenejad (sp?) really has no power in the Iranian state? I did not say he must be listened to, i just said he should be taken seriously. And, if alternative media does mean left/liberal (typical labels by those not searching for nuance and complex arguments), is that becasue normal media is considered right/conservative?
Perhaps it’s odd of me to wade into this issue, but I think we may have overlooked the main argument. Juan Cole probably is good to listen to about Iranian and “Middle Eastern” issues, if only to get another side of a multi-faceted story. However, I think what Nathan [and myself] would strongly reason against is letting Mr. Cole accept anything that comes out of Craig Murray’s mind as legitimate information regarding Uzbekistan, Central Asia, or the people that live there. Craig Murray’s history is almost as suspect as Karimov’s, morally speaking. Whether you’re boiling dissidents alive or ‘hanging out’ with underaged girls on the embassy’s time, both ways you’re not exactly going to be on the cover of “Boy’s Life.”
So, that’s what I would focus on here. Juan Cole can say what he likes, assuming he’s not taking Craig Murray’s BS as anything more than one man’s all-too-hastily jumped-to conclusions. Everyone can agree that Uzbekistan has problems, and that there is a lot more there than our foreign policy allows for. Be that as it may, I would be very slow to offer advice or suggestions if all I knew was what some dishonored ambassador said after the fact.