It’s funny, I can think of a long list of countries that we have a compelling interest not to piss off, yet we do. Russia, Syria, Egypt, Germany (you wanna talk bases?), Turkey (again), etc. etc. etc. Is complex reality so hard for you to deal with that you posit a simplistic fantasy?

Let’s just get down to brass tacks. Your black and white approach–the moralizing approach that relies on a heavy dose of moralizing and a sparing one of planning–is morally juvenile. If quiet criticism yields the best results, then so be it. If we must tolerate some evil for the opportunity to do some good (which, you’ll have to take my word on this, I’ve seen plenty of done by in Uzbekistan by American hands); if that’s the only opportunity we have, well, by God, we should. Declaring it too hard and turning your back might seem appealing, but it’s a disgusting abdication.

But if you’re citing Laughland as an authority, then you likely inhabit a moral universe turned upside down. And also, it’s ironic that you would cite him. After all, he’s affiliated with BHHRG, a group that suggests Uzbekistan’s elections are fairer than Ukraine’s and even, in some way, the UK’s.

It is said quietly, in private, and with the intention of causing as little loss of face as possible.

But China still ranks as “most favoured nation”.

Because “it is in the interests of…”

I concede that all of this lies in the realms of two faced duplicitous diplomacy. But then ( as Laughland said in a recent article ) sometimes it is better to be an enemy of the the US. Then at worst they might try and buy you. Be careful if you are a friend of the US because there is nothing surer than they will sell you – sooner or later…

As for the true use of the base in Uzbekistan, I am quite sure that between the public statement and the truth there are many many miles to be walked. Who knows what might lie by that road.

Yes, I can imagine we’d jeapordize the base. It is not used for combat operations–that’s specifically prohibited under the terms of use. As I understand it, it’s a very useful, but not absolutely necessary, point for equipment to be shipped on to Afghanistan. We do have another base in the region that has been used for combat operations, and when the authoritarian government there was under siege, we shed not a tear.

I know this is hard for ideologues to do, but there are certain objective conditions in Uzbekistan we have to deal with. Read my other posts. I discuss them at length. When I take into consideration those factors, the unreported statements of US officials criticizing Uzbekistan for the past two years (is that jeapordizing, or will you dismiss that out of hand?), and the US record throughout the former Soviet Union, I can’t help but think you’re sorely mistaken.

And yes, the Iraq comparison is silly. The entire portfolio of our actions in Uzbekistan (which I hope I’d be accepted to know about since I have firsthand experience with some parts most rarely hear about), the drastically different nature of the military relationship, etc. etc. etc. make the comparison too overly simplistic for a truly serious discussion of policy.

We agree? There is a US used and active airbase in Uzbekistan?

If it is active, and there is no reason to doubt otherwise, what is its most likely purpose and use?

If it is active, do you imagine for one moment that your CinC would jeopardise that facility when it is a primary resource in obtaining air access to northern Afghanistan and Pakistan for personnel, supply and intelligence?

If it is active, do you imagine for one moment that your CinC would jeopardise that facility when a possible action against Iran is long since passed the status of “possible”?

What would be one of the quickest ways for your CinC to jeopardise that facility? Simple. Criticise the human rights policies of the local government. You know, really stuff it up their collectivised noses. What a fantastic piece of diplomacy that would be.

What it comes down to is very simple.

The US will do nothing to upset Kharimov for the simple reason that it is in the US interest to have Kharimov on your side.

The comparison with Iraq? Exactly the same arguments were put up then to justify the supply of sarin and the required delivery systems along with a wide range of other weaponry and training to Saddam. Remember, at that time Iraq was at war with Iran; Iran had said nasty things about the US; that made Iraq ( an enemy of my enemy is my friend ) useful to the US interest.

It is known, at least in the circles I inhabit, as “protecting the interests of the US”.

A lot of other countries have them too. Even ones without improperly used quotation mark properties. What makes Uzbekistan unique?

And you’re kidding with the Iraq comparison right? The two are so different as to assure me that you’re a run-of-the-mill post-deological lefty with only a surface understanding of the facts.

It has to do with a fairly large tract of flat land with specialised tarmac and other infrastructure.

It is an airbase.

It gives “close strategic access” to areas such as Iran, Iraq and Pakistan.

Do you think that Bush will compromise that facility by stepping on the toes of Kharimov?

Nah, hence the “quiet word in the ear” approach…

There is an interesting comparison here, between the relationship Bush – Kharimov with an earlier US President and a petty little tyrant named Saddam…

Welcome to the Carnival of Revolutions! In this time, in our time, we’re witnessing history unfolding every day, a spontaneous explosion of political activity is breaking out around the world. We’ve seen it in Ukraine. We’ve seen it in Lebanon….

If anything, the failure of the sanctions against Iraq and the perversion of the OFF program have demonstrated the variance that can exist between taking the moral highground and taking effective action.

That one can simultaneously argue the Iraqi sanctions killed countless children and also that Bush should essentially isolate Uzbekistan in a similar manner informs me that both positions are more politially than morally derived.

Honestly, what you are saying is so far disconnected from facts and reality and so deeply-set in the self-contained world of Marxist analysis, that it’s hard to know what you’re saying, let alone respond.

All I can say about the relationship is that it’s most definitely not about business. US companies have little success in Uzbekistan. The big exception is NewMont.

Again, if you actually knew what countries were investing, what the whole portfolio or Uzbekistan’s relationships with the rest of the world looks like, what US aid gets used for, etc. Well, you probably wouldn’t believe any differently. Your analysis would just be more baroque to explain away the facts. Like I said, that’s what’s cool about being an ideologue, once you got it down, you don’t have to think anymore.