The US and 'velvet revolutions'

Now here's a funny thing. In an ex-Soviet Union country, a popular demonstration takes place in its capital city against a corrupt regime led by an autocratic president known to be a serial committer of 'human rights abuses', such as imprisonment without trial, and torture and disappearances of political opponents, to mention but a few. The kleptocratic regime hasn't even a figleaf of "democratic legitimacy", being the continuation of the old nomenklatura from the Soviet era. The people, suffering unemployment and poverty whilst the ruling class wallows obscenely in its stolen wealth, and denied normal avenues of political expression (political parties, free Press, etc), takes to the streets in protest.

The regime's response is swift and brutal: its troops open fire on the unarmed crowds, killing hundreds of protesters. The president claims that "only" a few tens died, and that they, and the demonstrators, were foreign extremists out to bring down his regime. According to him, a small band of terrorists attacked the security forces, then called their families into the main square and used them as "human shields". This grotesque and obscene version of events is plainly untrue.

So far, so normal for an ex-USSR country ruled by the old nomenklatura fortified with new mafia, and propped up by a powerful outside power with 'strategic and economic interests' in the region.

But here's the funny thing. The United States, quick to come to the aid of "freedom-loving peoples" the world over in their struggles to overthrow "brutal dictatorships", has in the case of this country called on both sides to "exercise caution and restraint" [1]. Why such diffidence, such reticence to support an open and shut case of a popular revolt against a brutal dictatorship? After all, President Bush was only last week in Georgia (that's Georgia in Yoorp, not Georgia, USA) where he praised the country as "a beacon of liberty for this region and the world", and lauded the "Rose revolution" carried out by the Georgians to depose the Russian-backed regime of Edvard Shevardnadze, setting an example to all those labouring under the yoke of tyranny [2].

Or take the "orange revolution" in the Ukraine, in which hundreds of thousands, millions of people took to the streets of Tblisi and stayed there, despite the bitter winter cold, until the corrupt, vote-rigging, repressive nomenklatura regime was driven from power and the "democratically-elected" opposition presidential candidate, Viktor Yushenko, was installed in office. The US, during and after the orange revolution, was fulsome in its praise of the opposition, and provided it with material, financial and political support.

Then there's Kyrgizstan, where "people power", again strongly supported with more than just words by the USA, drove another corrupt nomenklatura regime from power. Moving outside the ex-USSR, we recently had the "Cedar revolution" in the Lebanon, a nation occupied for over a decade by its powerful and dictatorial neighbour, Syria. A leading anti-occupation figure is killed in a spectacular car bomb assassination, all fingers of blame are pointed at the occupying power (although the perps still remain unknown), and millions take to the streets in open revolt. The US publicly and enthusiastically supports the yearning of the "Lebanese people" for freedom from occupation and, under severe pressure and with dark hints of 'stronger measures' emanating from Washington, Syria withdraws.

The Bush Doctrine is clear - anywhere in the world where peoples struggle for freedom against brutal and oppressive regimes, the US will come to their aid. And if there were dark insinuations and accusations, in all these "velvet revolutions", of US string-pulling, active regime destabilisation, and fomentation of revolt, it could rightly be said tht the US was just adding its not inconsiderable breath to an already mighty wind of freedom filling the sails of the peoples as they voyaged to the democratic Promised Land. Pushing at open doors, if you will.

Now, in Uzbekistan, the world sees a notoriously vicious and corrupt regime trying desperately to cling to power in the face of people power through the use of armed force against unarmed demonstrators. The regime is publicly acknowledged by the US as being guilty of "human rights abuses" - a previous US ambassador to Uzbekistan said as much explicitly on Radio 4's PM programme two days ago (14/5/05). Famously, the British ex-ambassador, Craig Murray, described in graphic detail the routine killings and torture carried out by the regime, including the boiling alive of political opponents (for which indelicate indiscretion he was forced into early retirement by the Foreign Office) [3].

The Uzbek regime is a gruesome case study of oppression, torture, murder and corruption. In comparison, the regimes in Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgizstan and Lebanon were boy scout brigades. Funny, then, that the US is being so cautious and conciliatory, seeking to mediate between the people and its oppressor. You'd expect that, under the Bush Doctrine, the US would stand "four square" behind a people "yearning for freedom" beneath the yoke of a "brutal dictatorship", but instead it tamely tries to reconcile the opposing sides and calls for "restraint".

So why the softly-softly approach? Only a cynic or a naysayer or an "enemy of freedom" would dare even hint that the presence of long-term US military bases in the country, which allows it to "project power" into a region where are found nations like Afghanistan, Iran, and of course Iraq, might colour US views on "instability" in Uzbekistan. Only a "friend of terrorism" would make the foul insinuation that maintaining a client state in the region, however dictatorial ("he may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch"), with its own oil, surrounded by other oil-rich states, and states through which pipelines have to run to reach the sea to slake the US's ever-growing thirst for oil, could even remotely be a factor in the US's uncharacteristic reluctance to stand "four square" behind the Uzbek people's popular revolt.

Hell, no - perish the thought.

PS: the day after posting the above, Craig Murray wrote an interesting article about the Uzbek regime and the US and UK's support for it in the Guardian. See article link below.
PPS: Schnews led on the Uzbekistan story, with a typically detailed, well-researched and scathing article - see article link below.

Articles and references

BBC News: Uzbek president blames Islamists (14/5/05), Uzbek troops seal off second town (16/5/05)

Guardian: "What drives support for this torturor. Oil and gas ensure that the US backs the Uzbek dictator to the hilt" (Craig Murray, 16/5/05); "The lie about liberty" (Nick Paton Walsh, 31/5/05)

Schnews: "Let them eat lead". Issue 498, 20/5/05.

[1] White House Press briefing, 13/5/05)
[2] President Addresses and Thanks Citizens in Tbilisi, Georgia (White House press release, 10/5/05)
[3] Our man in Tashkent (Index for Free Expression).