He's our sonofabitch

[Briar]

He's our sonofabitch

The west's support for the Uzbek regime exposes its destructive reliance on despots and tyrants

Jonathan Freedland

Think of it as the sonofabitch school of foreign policy. Legend has it that when Franklin D Roosevelt was confronted with the multiple cruelties of his ally, the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, he replied: "He may be a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofabitch."
More than 60 years on, that serves as a pretty good expression of American, and therefore British, attitudes to Islam Karimov, the tyrant of Tashkent who has ruled the central Asian republic of Uzbekistan since the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991.

That he is a sonofabitch is beyond dispute. Like so many despots before him, Karimov has looked to medieval times for ever more brutal methods of oppression. Hence the return of the cauldron, boiling alive two of his critics in 2002. Uzbekistan holds up to 6,000 political prisoners; independent economic activity has been crushed; religious practice is severely restricted; there is no free press; and the internet is censored. On December 26, when the world was marvelling at Ukraine's orange revolution, Karimov was hosting an election that was not nearly as close - he had banned all the opposition parties.

But, hey, what's a little human rights violation among friends? And Karimov has certainly been our friend. Shortly after 9/11, he allowed the US to locate an airbase at Khanabad - a helpful contribution to the upcoming war against Afghanistan. Since then he has been happy to act as a reliable protector of central Asian oil and gas supplies, much coveted by a US eager to reduce its reliance on the Gulf states. And he has gladly let Uzbekistan be used for what is euphemistically known as "rendition", the practice of exporting terror suspects to countries less squeamish about torture than Britain or the US. This was the matter over which the heroic Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Tashkent, fell out with his employers: he argued that Britain was "selling its soul" by using information gathered under such heinous circumstances.

Brushing Murray's qualms to one side, London and Washington remained grateful to Karimov. A procession of top Bush administration officials trekked to Tashkent to thank the dictator for his services. Donald Rumsfeld, not content with that 1983 photo of himself shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, praised Karimov for his "wonderful cooperation", while George Bush's former Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, admired the autocrat's "very keen intellect and deep passion" for improving the lives of ordinary Uzbeks.

More at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1486298,00.html

[tjwmason]

1. Has there been any views taken on this in the U.S.

Even the Torygraph has attacked the close relationship between the U.S. and the Uzbek government http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/05/16/dl11601.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/05/16/ixopinion.html

When the Gruaniad and the Torygraph agree, it's a rare event but usually indicates that they are both right.

[T_i_B]

2. Interview with former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan

From Metro, the free rag you find lying about on trains. I assure you you will like this.

http://www.metro.co.uk/metro/interviews/interview.html?in_page_id=8&in_interview_id=1086

[kliljedahl]

3. He certainly has been "helpful" to us

Keith’s Barbeque Central