A Dictator Of Our Own
"No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims, and our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found"
In his inauguration speech in January, President George W. Bush was careful to emphasise that his second administration would continue the work already laid out in fighting for democracy and freedom across the world. Crucially, he identified the errors made by previous US administrations – particularly during the Cold War – in backing despots and dictators purely because of their perceived adherence to the West. Examples abound: the 24-year reign of President Mubarak in Egypt, the entrenchment of the Saudi royal family, the support for Saddam Hussein during the 1980s. All of these regimes were assisted, either financially, militarily or through propaganda, by the United States as they were seen as important bastions against communism or Islamic extremism. All were, and in some cases still are, grounded upon the suppression of their own people.
According to Bush’s speech, no longer would the US support such anti-democratic regimes simply for the sake of convenience. Five months into his second term, a situation has arisen in central Asia that should, in theory, provide the White House with ample opportunity to demonstrate its new attitude to what it memorably described as “outposts of tyranny”. Yet the reaction by both America and Britain to the events in Uzbekistan give the lie to their supposed demands for democratic freedom and justice.
The hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people butchered by government forces in the city of Andijan this week are merely the latest victims of Uzbekistan’s president, Islam Karimov. The Soviet-era leftover has presides over a dictatorship in which vicious crackdowns and political repression have become commonplace. He has proved himself a creative user of state-level torture tactics, boiling political prisoners alive and authorising the police to break bones and mutilate bodies. There are some 6,000 political and religious prisoners in the country. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have produced dossiers detailing the widespread torture, which has escalated in the last few years.
Surely this makes Uzbekistan a ripe candidate for regime change? This would be the case, if only George Bush’s lofty promises of freedom had any shred of truth. In fact over the last four years the administrations in Washington and Tashkent have formed quite the partnership. In the aftermath of 9/11, President Karimov was quick to offer his country as a base from which to launch air raids against Afghanistan, hence securing huge amounts of US aid and military funding. Simultaneously, he labelled any dissidents in his country – including (but not limited to) trade unionists, students, and Muslims – with the smear word of the day. Thus, anybody who opposed his increasingly dictatorial manner became a ‘terrorist’ and further crackdowns were justified. The US and Britain, concerned with maintaining a strong geopolitical influence in the area – not to mention mindful of nearby oil and gas reserves – turned a blind eye to the repression. Furthermore, the country’s proximity to Iran – one third of the ‘axis of evil’ and increasingly the subject of US sabre-rattling – further elevated its importance.
Both Britain and the United States can hardly have been unaware of the repressive political atmosphere in Uzbekistan. Britain’s former ambassador to the country, Craig Murray, made numerous reports to the Foreign Office detailing the widespread torture and endemic violence, and complained that the CIA and MI6 were using ‘evidence’ obtained under duress by the Uzbek government to prove links between dissidents and al-Queda. He made so much noise, in fact, that to avoid further embarrassment the government relieved him of his role and shipped him back to the UK on trumped-up accusations of improper conduct. Murray has since remained a vociferous critic of the double standards at play.
The massacre in Andijan was sparked by a jailbreak, aimed at freeing the 23 businessmen who were arrested and charged with the rather woolly offence of ‘Islamic extremism’. Their supporters, who organised the jailbreak, maintain that they are innocent. The government disputes the hundreds of deaths and claims that only terrorists were killed. Regardless of their criminality, carnage on this scale cannot be tolerated by any civilised nation intent on promoting freedom and democracy. Yet the reaction from the British and US governments has been muted. The White House expressed its ‘concern’, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meekly called for ‘political reform’, while in London Jack Straw condemned the violence. Yet no official censure has come from either government, much less a rush to mobilise the armed forces and march on Tashkent waving the flag of freedom.
While the bodies are still laid out on the dusty streets of Andijan, the leaders in London and Washington will quietly wait until Uzbekistan is off the front page. When it comes to a dictator who is on our side, massacres will always be an unpleasant – yet tolerable – distraction.
In his inauguration speech in January, President George W. Bush was careful to emphasise that his second administration would continue the work already laid out in fighting for democracy and freedom across the world. Crucially, he identified the errors made by previous US administrations – particularly during the Cold War – in backing despots and dictators purely because of their perceived adherence to the West. Examples abound: the 24-year reign of President Mubarak in Egypt, the entrenchment of the Saudi royal family, the support for Saddam Hussein during the 1980s. All of these regimes were assisted, either financially, militarily or through propaganda, by the United States as they were seen as important bastions against communism or Islamic extremism. All were, and in some cases still are, grounded upon the suppression of their own people.
According to Bush’s speech, no longer would the US support such anti-democratic regimes simply for the sake of convenience. Five months into his second term, a situation has arisen in central Asia that should, in theory, provide the White House with ample opportunity to demonstrate its new attitude to what it memorably described as “outposts of tyranny”. Yet the reaction by both America and Britain to the events in Uzbekistan give the lie to their supposed demands for democratic freedom and justice.
The hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people butchered by government forces in the city of Andijan this week are merely the latest victims of Uzbekistan’s president, Islam Karimov. The Soviet-era leftover has presides over a dictatorship in which vicious crackdowns and political repression have become commonplace. He has proved himself a creative user of state-level torture tactics, boiling political prisoners alive and authorising the police to break bones and mutilate bodies. There are some 6,000 political and religious prisoners in the country. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have produced dossiers detailing the widespread torture, which has escalated in the last few years.
Surely this makes Uzbekistan a ripe candidate for regime change? This would be the case, if only George Bush’s lofty promises of freedom had any shred of truth. In fact over the last four years the administrations in Washington and Tashkent have formed quite the partnership. In the aftermath of 9/11, President Karimov was quick to offer his country as a base from which to launch air raids against Afghanistan, hence securing huge amounts of US aid and military funding. Simultaneously, he labelled any dissidents in his country – including (but not limited to) trade unionists, students, and Muslims – with the smear word of the day. Thus, anybody who opposed his increasingly dictatorial manner became a ‘terrorist’ and further crackdowns were justified. The US and Britain, concerned with maintaining a strong geopolitical influence in the area – not to mention mindful of nearby oil and gas reserves – turned a blind eye to the repression. Furthermore, the country’s proximity to Iran – one third of the ‘axis of evil’ and increasingly the subject of US sabre-rattling – further elevated its importance.
Both Britain and the United States can hardly have been unaware of the repressive political atmosphere in Uzbekistan. Britain’s former ambassador to the country, Craig Murray, made numerous reports to the Foreign Office detailing the widespread torture and endemic violence, and complained that the CIA and MI6 were using ‘evidence’ obtained under duress by the Uzbek government to prove links between dissidents and al-Queda. He made so much noise, in fact, that to avoid further embarrassment the government relieved him of his role and shipped him back to the UK on trumped-up accusations of improper conduct. Murray has since remained a vociferous critic of the double standards at play.
The massacre in Andijan was sparked by a jailbreak, aimed at freeing the 23 businessmen who were arrested and charged with the rather woolly offence of ‘Islamic extremism’. Their supporters, who organised the jailbreak, maintain that they are innocent. The government disputes the hundreds of deaths and claims that only terrorists were killed. Regardless of their criminality, carnage on this scale cannot be tolerated by any civilised nation intent on promoting freedom and democracy. Yet the reaction from the British and US governments has been muted. The White House expressed its ‘concern’, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meekly called for ‘political reform’, while in London Jack Straw condemned the violence. Yet no official censure has come from either government, much less a rush to mobilise the armed forces and march on Tashkent waving the flag of freedom.
While the bodies are still laid out on the dusty streets of Andijan, the leaders in London and Washington will quietly wait until Uzbekistan is off the front page. When it comes to a dictator who is on our side, massacres will always be an unpleasant – yet tolerable – distraction.
posted by DN at 7:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home