NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is this? While all of you were ranting about evolution, hundreds of people have been massacred by the Uzbek government. Has the American media reported it?

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2005/0514/1125518107FR14UZNEWS.html

UZBEKISTAN: Troops opened fire into crowds of demonstrators in eastern Uzbekistan yesterday, killing at least 50 and wounding many more during anti-government protests.

Eyewitnesses said the troops fired at point-blank range into the protesters after they took control of the main square of the town of Andijan.

The protests began when demonstrators stormed a prison in the morning to free 23 suspects accused by the authorities of being Islamic militants.

This violence comes amid rising tension in the Central Asian republic, where protesters have accused the government of Islam Karimov of ever harsher repression.

In a separate incident a suspected suicide bomber was shot dead by security guards outside the Israeli embassy in the capital, Tashkent.

European Union officials condemned the Uzbek security forces for heavy-handed action against protesters.

"The protests are an indication of the tension built up by the government that has not paid sufficient respect to human rights, rule of law and poverty alleviation," a spokesman for the EU's executive commission said.

Meanwhile the United States blamed protesters for the fighting, describing the freed prisoners as terrorists.

"We are concerned about the outbreak of violence, particularly by some members of a terrorist organisation that were freed from prison," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.

"We urge both the government and the demonstrators to exercise restraint at this time."

Russia last night offered unspecified assistance to Uzbekistan's government.

The protests began early in the morning. After a week of demonstrations outside the city jail, protesters yesterday took over the building without casualties, freeing more than 2,000 prisoners. The government said the prisoners included terrorism suspects, but protesters insisted the charges were manufactured.

They then marched on the town centre and were joined by townspeople to stage a second bloodless takeover, this time of the city's regional government headquarters.

Many of the protesting men wore square black embroidered skullcaps, while some wore the white skullcaps favoured by observant Muslim Uzbeks. The protesters posted their own guards on the perimeter of the square. Eyewitnesses and journalists said troops then arrived in armoured personnel carriers.

After surrounding the square, the troops opened fire with rifles and heavy weapons at the unarmed demonstrators.

In the panic that followed bodies were left lying on the square while bystanders rushed dozens of wounded to hospital.

One man sobbed: "My son is dead". At least two children were among the dead, but witnesses said the troops kept firing into the crowds.

Later in the evening troops stormed the government headquarters. A group of the town's human rights officials last night appealed for outside intervention, saying the town was surrounded by soldiers and the inhabitants were terrified.

A local website claimed "several hundred" demonstrators had been killed by the soldiers.

President Karimov reportedly flew to the city from the capital last night for talks with the rebels, but returned without an agreement.

A government spokesman described the protesters as "terrorists and criminals".

More troops were last night ordered to the city, which lies in a region where opposition to the government is strong.

Meanwhile, reports in the Russian media said security guards at the Israeli embassy in Tashkent opened fire when a man walked towards the front entrance yesterday morning.

When he was ordered to stop, he shouted anti-Israeli slogans and was then shot in the leg. The report said the man continued to crawl towards the embassy and was shot dead. The report did not say whether he carried a weapon.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2005/0516/4231735044C_A.html
Bush silent on ally regime killings

UZBEKISTAN: The shooting dead of hundreds of demonstrators by Uzbek soldiers has drawn only muted reaction in Washington, where Uzbekistan is considered a close ally in its war on terrorism.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan urged restraint by both sides and said that Uzbeks should pursue their goals peacefully.

By contrast the British government condemned the Uzbekistan authorities for opening fire on demonstrators.

British foreign secretary Jack Straw said yesterday: "The situation is very serious. There has been a clear abuse of human rights, a lack of democracy and a lack of openness."

The US has an air base and 1,000 personnel in the Karshi-Khanabad region of Uzbekistan. It is used for military operations in Afghanistan, 90 miles to the south.

And recently it emerged that the US has another use for Uzbekistan: Washington has sent terror suspects there for detention and interrogation.

Uzbekistan's role as a surrogate jailer for the United States was first reported last month by the New York Times, which cited several current and former intelligence officials.

One official estimated that the number of terrorism suspects sent by the US to Tashkent was in the dozens.

Details of the CIA's prisoner transfer or "rendition" programme since 9/11 have emerged in accounts by former detainees who alleged they were beaten and tortured after being sent to prisons in Egypt and Afghanistan.

US intelligence officials estimate that 100 to 150 suspected terrorists have been rendered to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan.

International human rights groups have accused Uzbekistan of torturing prisoners with the use of boiling water and electric shocks on genitals, as well as plucking off fingernails and toenails with pliers.

Two prisoners were reportedly boiled to death.

The renditions to Uzbekistan were made despite the US State Department criticism of the central Asian republic.

The country "is not a democracy and does not have a free press", it states on its website. "Several prominent opponents of the government have fled, and others have been arrested. The government severely represses those it suspects of Islamic extremism, particularly those it suspects of membership in the banned Party of Islamic Liberation (Hizb ut-Tahrir). Some 5,300 to 5,800 suspected extremists are incarcerated."

It goes on to say that "prison conditions remain very poor, particularly for those convicted of extremist activities, and a number of such prisoners are believed to have died over the past several years from prison disease and abuse".

It says the police and the intelligence service "use torture as a routine investigation technique".

Asked about renditions at a press conference on April 28th, Mr Bush said: "We operate within the law and we send people to countries where they say they're not going to torture the people. But let me say something: the United States government has an obligation to protect the American people. It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us ... We still [ are] at war."

Mr Bush has welcomed President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan to the White House, and the US has given Uzbekistan more than $500 million for border control and other security measures.

The official US view is that Uzbekistan is "a strong supporter of US military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq and of the global war against terror" and the US "in turn, values Uzbekistan as a stable, moderate force in a turbulent region".

Washington has urged greater reform to promote long-term stability and prosperity and registration of independent political parties and NGOs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4546673.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4549873.stm

Naaa.... why bother? There's probably no oil in the region...

IN answer to your question: Yes.

Considering that shooting protestors and using torture are de-riguer in that region, it's kind of like "dog bites man" unless you're grinding an axe of some kind politically.

I know it's called the Green Revolution. Our East European/West Asian brothers fancy calling their revolutions by fruit and veggies, and their colours. Some analyses I've read criticises dear Bush to harbour double standards when faced with popular uprisings. After all, this one in Uzbek was inspired by Muslim radicals. It hints at something about Bush's foreign policy, no?

.... It hints at something about Bush's foreign policy, no?...

No, no, no... That isn't it... It's just that we Americans don't like to stick our noses in another country's business. ;)

IN answer to your question: Yes.

Considering that shooting protestors and using torture are de-riguer in that region, it's kind of like "dog bites man" unless you're grinding an axe of some kind politically.
Has this been reported in the US Media at all?

Yes it's been widely reported in the US media. And? 500 people die at the hands of a tyrant. He's got a long way to go before he gets into a Slobidan situtation. Besides Sudan was in the shoot queue before them anyway. It'd be impolite to let someone else cut.

That said, what's your solution? Cruise Missles? An invasion? Dirt poor countries don't care about sanctions, poverty is not an export in particular demand. Have your country do something about it. We've got a half season of TV ending over here for Christs sake!

That said, what's your solution?

China should step in. :cool:

That isn't going to happen. Take a look at the history of Chinese Russian relations. That well might be even more provocative than American intervention against Serbia.

That isn't going to happen. Take a look at the history of Chinese Russian relations. That well might be even more provocative than American intervention against Serbia.

To hell with Moscow. They can't even get themselves sorted, let alone worry about Uzbek.

Why is this? While all of you were ranting about evolution, hundreds of people have been massacred by the Uzbek government. Has the American media reported it?

Unlikely, the Americans walk around with their eyes shut and their guns loaded. :sniper: :mad:

It's attitudes like that which get arch-dukes assassinated.

Has this been reported in the US Media at all?

Mostly page-three stuff, we've got Michael Jackson's trial, mindless sports and entertainment "news", and other frivolous bullshit taking up page one.

Five hundered people doesn't make him a Milosevic, yet-it doesn't even make the man a Quaddafi or Castro yet.
It might bring him up to the level of that Syrian fellow, but considering that the riot-control tactics employed followed the standard soviet-era handbook that the Uzbek military and police are still training under, (For you who don't know, Uzbekistan used to be part of the Soviet Union, and shooting protestors was at times quite common, esp. in the Arabic republics of that empire, and its sattelite states.)
it doesn't even make him a Putin yet. (Chechnya.)

It's likely that islamic sympathy in Uzbekistan is more driven by this last bit (Chechnya) than what the U.S. may or may not be doing in Iraq. The Chechen revolt is still a going concern, and has radicalized visibly in the last ten years as western powers witheld their support and Maskhadov had to turn to groups like (SURPRISE) Al-Quaeda to arm, train, and organize his revolution.
The Uzbeks have a common history of religious and ethnic suppression under the old communist regime, and it is not unlikely that Islamic militants might find a fertile recruiting ground in Uzbekistan, as they have in Chechnya.

What I'm trying to point out, is that it is more complex than "Bush Bad".

It's attitudes like that which get arch-dukes assassinated.

Which one?

(For you who don't know, Uzbekistan used to be part of the Soviet Union, and shooting protestors was at times quite common, esp. in the Arabic republics of that empire, and its sattelite states.)

That is, the Turkic republics. The Arab world starts south of Turkey, and the USSR never reached that far south

That is, the Turkic republics. The Arab world starts south of Turkey, and the USSR never reached that far south

Unless you count spheres of influence. . . .

That is, the Turkic republics. The Arab world starts south of Turkey, and the USSR never reached that far south

[faceplant] GAAAHHHGGHGHGHGHHGHHHGHGHG!!!!! I knew that, I really did. I really must be falling down to forget something that basic. CRAP.

My geography prof would be so ashamed...

"The protests began when demonstrators stormed a prison in the morning to free 23 suspects accused by the authorities of being Islamic militants."

Honestly, I think most countries would have fired in to the crowd.

"The protests began when demonstrators stormed a prison in the morning to free 23 suspects accused by the authorities of being Islamic militants."

Honestly, I think most countries would have fired in to the crowd.
True. But not all countries have thousands of political prisoners. Those authorities are everything but reliable source of information.

That area ,btw, is the most densely populated area in central Asia.

People got shot for breaking in to a prison.

This is standard.

If they have an issue with the government, doing something that would get you shot in ANY government is a silly idea.

It's like if a would-be martyr went up and slashed a guy's throat.

Them Uzbeks are just mopping up some islamiac jiady terrurists, no problem here.

Them Uzbeks are just mopping up some islamiac jiady terrurists, no problem here.

Be careful with your use of sarcasm. Here in NS you'll find morons capable of saying that and really meaning it. Which induces confusion.

I dont think its gone unnoticed. We just dont talk about every single world event on this forum nor should we begin trying to do so.

People got shot for breaking in to a prison.

This is standard.

If they have an issue with the government, doing something that would get you shot in ANY government is a silly idea.

It's like if a would-be martyr went up and slashed a guy's throat.
They didn't get shot when they were breaking in to a prison. They got shot when they were protesting against oppressing government. Only the supporters of dictator Karimov are saying that they were armed islamist militants. All the other sources tell a different story. (I'm not saying that they are right either, I can't form an opinions as all the sources are unreliable)

What they should do about their situation? Is there really a peaceful way to get rid of a dictator? Or should they just keep suffering? And notice that Uzbekistan is not similar to Ukraina or Georgia.

Naaa.... why bother? There's probably no oil in the region...

Here Here! Instead let's just invade Saudi Arabia.

Islam Karimov (murdering dictator of Uzbekistan) signed up to Bush's ware on terror, so he is one of the 'good guys'

If he was a murdering dictator that didn't sign up to the war, then it'd be different. He'd be a 'bad guy'

What I'm trying to point out, is that it is more complex than "Bush Bad".
Good points. And it's not Bush's bad. BUT USA and UK could stop supporting a dictator even if he's on "our" side on war against terrorism.

Who were those 23 islamist terrorists?

hmm...They were supporters of Akramism. Local authorities claim that Akramiya is an extremist group with ties to another banned islamist group.

From Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1484865,00.html

Akramiya suggests that economic success and prosperity is the key to an Islamic way of life, and that part of business profits should be diverted to help the poor.

Local media reported that the 23 businessmen had set up a construction company to give local people jobs, yet they were quickly arrested.

The former UK ambassador to Tashkent, Craig Murray, said: "I know these people and have met them. They do not have a particularly strong Islamic bent and are more interested in greater economic freedom. They are Turkey, not the Taliban."
I guess greater economic freedom is too frightening...

Yes, it has been reported in U.S. news. However, it is one of those embarrassing stories, because Uzbek is a U.S. ally. And unfortunately, our government has a bad habit of supporting those who give us what we want- such as an airbase- no matter how badly they treat thier people. Saudi is another good example, with thier awful abuse of women's rights.
So even though we talk of 'government's responsibility to the people,' we won't help the people against this one, and we probably won't even publicly condemn thier President.

I insist the Chinese step in.

Mostly page-three stuff, we've got Michael Jackson's trial, mindless sports and entertainment "news", and other frivolous bullshit taking up page one.Have you ever read "Fahrenheit 451"?

You ought to.

It is the most accurate prediction I've seen of American life today, and probably the scariest. Read it.



Naaa.... why bother? There's probably no oil in the region...
Here Here! Instead let's just invade Saudi Arabia.We can't. They're giving us oil and they're our allies. Nevermind that they have been known to harbor terrorists and Al Qaeda.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Be careful with your use of sarcasm. Here in NS you'll find morons capable of saying that and really meaning it. Which induces confusion.

Agreed and point taken. I'll exercise more caution next time I make sarcastic remarks.

It's hardly earth shattering news (Like some people make out) that the US is supporting a brutal regime. The US isn't some kind of champion of democracy. It doesn't have any interest in the plight of the people, it's only out for it's own interests. Just like any government, the US will take the moral high ground when it's fashionable to, but will ignore it when it's politically expedient.

Islam Karimov (murdering dictator of Uzbekistan) signed up to Bush's ware on terror, so he is one of the 'good guys'

If he was a murdering dictator that didn't sign up to the war, then it'd be different. He'd be a 'bad guy'

Precisely. Islam Karimov boils members of the opposition to his regime in Boiling vats of water or acid, and claims all oppostion to his is 'Islamic militants'.

The people released from the prison were accused of being terrorists, when it appears they were more political opponents to his (Karimov's) regime.

500 people have been reported killed. Men. Women. Children.

They could be your brothers. Your father. Your mother. Your sister, your kids.

They are human too, they have feelings.

An eyewitness speaks of Uzbek soldiers walking up to the wounded and 'finishing them off'. a single bullet to the head.

This is Tianamen Square revisited.

The US Administration is sweating, and calls the people killed 'terrorists' too.

This is why the US is hated and despised. Double standards by it's administrations and ignorance by it's people, all the time.

Because of Karimov's support in 'The war on terror' there is a US Military base there, and he receives military aid.

Preaching freedom, whilst the US Administration stifle it for profitable and strategic positioning in the region and elsewhere.

Disgusting.

But then nobody cares do they? They are people in a far off place, and they don't matter. It does not matter. As long as it's not you or your loved ones, or your nationality.

Nobody cares.

Well a big problem with brutale dictatorship that it very hard to change them peacfully and create a democratic goverment afterwards. Because brutale methods from the govermnet in many cases leads to brutale response from the opposition and also that brutality can easy corrupte the opposition. And if you are a supporter of dictaturship like the USA you face a risk of ending up with a opposition that not only wants to kill and fight the old regime but also hate the USA. So it would really good idea if the USA as a ally of the regime would step in a tried to find a peacfull solution there also have a really good bargain chips because there can threathen the regime with pulling out and stop there support to it. But of course it needs coperation of other parties preferly some that also can hold the opposition back.

Hip.

O.

Crit.

I.

hate.

Hip.

O.

Crits.

The people of Uzbekistan want to see a more representative and democratic government. But that should come through peaceful means, not through violence.
Yeah, only the US government gets to institute democracy by force! You stupid revolutionaries are out of line!

See! America is not some \"great nation,\" we have no moral quest in the world, we don\'t try to \"make things a better place,\" the US government only ever acts out of self intrest.

Someone said \"what can the US do? Invasion would draw critisism, and sactions mean nothing\"

The US can stop giving these people support, that\'s what! And all our little dictator allies around the world.

But they're not dictators! They have 99.9% approval ratings! :rolleyes:

Katzistanza,

Childish faux dilemma are only an embarrassment to those foolish enough to put them forth. As if the deaths of 500 are was the one problem in the world that really mattered. How many kids are going to starve to death in Ethiopia today? And 700 people are going to die in car accidents just this week in America alone. Can't save all the coal miners in China either. But those 500 people, that was the one moment for the United States to distinguish itself morally. Even if it meant destroying a government, and possibly sparking a civil war. At least it'd be a moral one. And all the lives lost, all the suffering endured, it'd be moral, because that was the one moment upon which the character of a far away nation was measured.

While people have the capacity for reason, they are frequently neglectful in its employ. It's an insidious quirk of the species opportunistic nature. So, even in foreign policy, one works within the actual limits of a system as opposed to exclusively sticking to the ideals. That means, sometimes, the US is going to let asshats get their way. That's life.

Part of foreign policy is saving the stick, and working the carrot. But if the party being dealt with is Bumblefuckistan, who's economy is based on misery, and who's only export is refugees, they, like a puppy, need a taste of the treat first. Then you can keep the goodies in your fist. They can smell it. Maybe lick it. Or have a little nibble. But the treat can be used to coax the puppy, or Bumblefuckistan, into a variety of useful positions. Maybe if it messes on the carpet, a stern voice is called for, or maybe nothing if the object of the training is neurotic. Or the treat can be taken away (perhaps covered by meters of volcanic ash). Or the stick might be used, hopefully sparingly. And if they're good, they can have the treat, and Uncle Sam can reach into his pocket for another, and move on with the training.

If while wallowing in the revealed international impotence of ones countrymen, one finds oneself with a surplus of indignation, it would behoove one to consider the following:
If a person doesn't have a solution to a problem, or hasn't put forth any effort to realizing a carefully considered solution, they're really just a coward who believes other people should make the tough calls, and do the heavy lifting while they just sit back and bitch about how "That's not the way the man in the yellow hat would have done it!"

It's Crayola morality. And nothing to be proud of.

That said, I'd suggest you read my earlier post again. But this time omit what you think is between the lines. Your powers of deduction don't have the most sterling track record.

but here's the thing, the US did not, as you said, scold the puppy for making a mess, in fact the US defended that puppy and his mess.

You seem to imply that the US is attempting to bring around governments such as these to heel through stagarded rewards (please correct me if I am wrong, and make clear what you were saying, if I have indead misread it). I think this is not the case at all, that they will help us in our military operation, and for that they get rewarded, and when they do something like this, we defend them because they are an ally.

I'm sorry if I'm missing some bigger picture here, but it just seems to me that you don't give support and money to a group of people who violently oppresses another group of people. And just because it's not on as grand a scale doesn't mean it's any less a tragity. If a man kills someone, his wife, let's say, people don't go "eh, he's no Ted Bundy or Zodiac Killer, and besides, hundreds of people will die from car crashes or swimming this year", the killer is punished for his crime.

I think a group of people who kill 500 unarmed human beings should be punished, not supported just because they have something we need.

While this is indeed sad, it's nothing out of the ordinary. This kind of thing happens everyday somewhere in the Third World.

US intervention would be imperialist or disrespectful of sovereignty.

"The protests began when demonstrators stormed a prison in the morning to free 23 suspects accused by the authorities of being Islamic militants."

Honestly, I think most countries would have fired in to the crowd.

but when those authorities are authoritarian bastards, it is right and just to break people out of prisons and it is wrong and unjust for the government to do anything other than abolish itself.

All world events have gone unnoticed by me these past weeks. Sorry. :(

it doesn't even make him a Putin yet. (Chechnya.)

It's likely that islamic sympathy in Uzbekistan is more driven by this last bit (Chechnya) than what the U.S. may or may not be doing in Iraq. The Chechen revolt is still a going concern, and has radicalized visibly in the last ten years as western powers witheld their support and Maskhadov had to turn to groups like (SURPRISE) Al-Quaeda to arm, train, and organize his revolution.
The Uzbeks have a common history of religious and ethnic suppression under the old communist regime, and it is not unlikely that Islamic militants might find a fertile recruiting ground in Uzbekistan, as they have in Chechnya.

What I'm trying to point out, is that it is more complex than "Bush Bad".
Definitely. While I am against the Iraq war and all, I find it unfortunate that most people in the west fixate on that rather than the far worse atrocities committed in Chechnya by the Russians.

but when those authorities are authoritarian bastards, it is right and just to break people out of prisons and it is wrong and unjust for the government to do anything other than abolish itself.

The Uzbek authorities aren't authoritarian, they're totalitarian.

Definitely. While I am against the Iraq war and all, I find it unfortunate that most people in the west fixate on that rather than the far worse atrocities committed in Chechnya by the Russians.

No surprise there. Communist-lover Bush says the Russians are our "allies," after all, even though they (and China) are the two biggest sponsors of terrorism the world has ever seen.

Yes, I've heard about the Uzbekistan incident....

Them Uzbeks are just mopping up some islamiac jiady terrurists, no problem here.
lol, only your misspellings let me know that you're being sarcastic.

I dont think its gone unnoticed. We just dont talk about every single world event on this forum nor should we begin trying to do so.
That's probably not feasible, but I think there's something wrong given the crap that gets posted here, yet this issue goes ignored.

Precisely. Islam Karimov boils members of the opposition to his regime in Boiling vats of water or acid, and claims all oppostion to his is 'Islamic militants'.

The people released from the prison were accused of being terrorists, when it appears they were more political opponents to his (Karimov's) regime.

500 people have been reported killed. Men. Women. Children.

An eyewitness speaks of Uzbek soldiers walking up to the wounded and 'finishing them off'. a single bullet to the head.

This is Tianamen Square revisited.

The US Administration is sweating, and calls the people killed 'terrorists' too.

This is why the US is hated and despised. Double standards by it's administrations and ignorance by it's people, all the time.

Because of Karimov's support in 'The war on terror' there is a US Military base there, and he receives military aid.

Preaching freedom, whilst the US Administration stifle it for profitable and strategic positioning in the region and elsewhere.

Disgusting.

But then nobody cares do they? They are people in a far off place, and they don't matter. It does not matter. As long as it's not you or your loved ones, or your nationality.

Nobody cares.
This is (partially) what I'm talking about!

Precisely. Islam Karimov boils members of the opposition to his regime in Boiling vats of water or acid, and claims all oppostion to his is 'Islamic militants'.

Reminds me of how apartheid South Africa labeled all opponents "communists," and deliberately made the Suppression of Communism Act as vaguely worded as possible so potentially any critics of apartheid or the National Party could be labeled "statutory communists."

The Uzbek authorities aren't authoritarian, they're totalitarian.

i use authoritarian as the general term, covering a range of particularly bastardly types of government. that way i don't have to know all the details about daily life in that country to assign a term for the style of rule.

The United States is getting an incredibly bad rap right now. True, we do "support" Uzbekistan (less than $100 million last year), but keep in mind we also had 1,000 soldiers in Kyrgyzstan. Arguably, we might have "loved" their "dictator" because he had "something we need".
It is quite apparent that the US did NOT intervene to save the Kyrgyzstan government...and, right now, we aren't intervening to help in Uzbekistan right now, either.

Personally, I wish I could personally eliminate the son of gun in charge of Uzbekistan right now. Tanks against protesters? Absolutely disgusting.

I haven't seen much news about it (outside of the Internet), and I dare say Bush has remained silent about it because the government is pro-American (or they're at least letting us use that airbase) and, well, it just looks bad when when we support a government that kills civilians.

Oh, the irony...

Has this been reported in the US Media at all?
It was on Harry Shearer's show ("Le Show") on NPR last night.
Probably won't hear *Kent Brockman* giving any broadcasts about it though. Don't hate him 'cuz he bought at the right time!

Communist-lover Bush says the ...

You live in a Ronald Reagan world, don't you?

"Communists! Everywhere! They're taking over! They're going to enslaaaave us aaaaaall!"