The EU has lifted the arms embargo on Uzbekistan. Reasons given are abolishment of the death penalty and release of political prisoners. Amnesty International is not nearly so convinced much has changed.
The embargo was introduced as a response to the Andijan massacre.
Seems that supply of the German Afghan contingent via Uzbekistan had absolutely NOTHING to do with it (honestly).
I am thinking that Uzbekistan is positioning itself as the most Westward facing nation of Central Asia by distancing itself from CTSO (Russian NATO) and after the torturous negotiations regarding the Manas airbase.
This move would then be something of a confirmation of partial success.
{ 13 comments }
Sanctions were symbolic and had absolutely no value but to appease some NGOs like Amnesty International. They did nothing but to harm image of Uzbekistan in media.
I have no idea whether you know it or not, here NGOs have a quite negative reputation and are mostly perceived as institutions with vested campaigning against Uzbekistan. Their unconstructive attitude towards Uzbekistan and means they use (unconfirmed information bordering with gossips) make you think that they are not the last authority whose judgement should be taken seriously.
Personally I welcome end of sanctions. Raproachment is better than arrogant attitude.
Actually, I’m sure the Uzbek government does a fine enough job harming its image in the media without outside help.
Somehow, the 2005 events in Andijan seem to be based on something more than gossip, but hey, maybe I just have an unconstructive attitude.
I would say Uzbek government does a really bad job not having an access to western media. Fine job for UZ government would be if they managed their voice to be heard in media as that of Amnesty International.
Wow, this is the understatement of the year. No Western journalists have any accreditation in Uzbekistan, and only AFP have a local reporter.
What few local journalists try to conduct any independent coverage are routinely intimidated and sometimes attacked. This is not gossip or speculation; it is a fact.
Western rapprochement with a vicious and isolated backwater tinpot dictatorship will do nobody any good, but it will make a mockery of any attempt to pretend that the EU’s foreign policy is nothing but cynical and feckless.
As for the remarks about NGOs, where to start. The few Western aid organization left in Uzbekistan _ that haven’t been arbitrarily expelled _ work in the health sector, and yet one continues to hear informal reports about how they are being squeezed.
“guest from UZ 10/30/2009 at 1:17 am” Thanks for sharing Uzbek perceptions regarding NGOs. NGOs also have a negative reputation in South Asia. In the early and mid 2000s, NGOs had a worse reputation than ISAF troops did in Afghanistan.
However, recently, public perceptions about NGOs among Afghan civilians seems to be rising. In the Afghan public opinion poll released three days ago, favorable ratings by institution are:
-ANA 91%
-ANP 84%
-foreign NGOs 66%
-Afghan NGOs 61%
-local militias 37% (some of these local militias might be Taliban?)
Any other thoughts about how NGOs are perceived in Central and South Asia?
This question is important because of its implications for how international aid should flow to Central Asia (including Pakistan.)
anan,
I believe in a crucial role of NGOs in development of civil society. However during Andijan events NGOs appeared to be fueling social unrest, rather than helping civil society.
This should become a classic counter-example to those who claim that ’shaming’ and ’soft measures’ work.
Foreign NGO are (intentionally or otherwise) means of penetration and they should not expect the governments of target nations to be friendly to them (the only exception might be liberal democratic societies).
Secular NGOs tend to have relatively better reputation than missionary ones. But there is not such thing as free lunch, everyone knows this.
“Secular NGOs tend to have relatively better reputation than missionary ones.”
I would not take this for granted. Secular NGO’s are generally perceived to be donor money grabbers and structures that serve certain urban elite groups and their clans or entourage (which a sizeable part of them actually are).
“Secular NGO’s are generally perceived to be donor money grabbers and structures that serve certain urban elite groups and their clans or entourage (which a sizable part of them actually are).” Nicely put.
@ Turgai: Are you suggesting that some NGO are inherently better than others just because they believe in Jesus?
Anyway, my opinion was expressed with an assumption that all NGOs are perceived as potential trouble-makers in the South and secular NGOs tend to be less troublesome in that sense because they may (equally as religious ones!) have too big operational costs but it is still better than others who (intentionally or not!) create interfaith hatred and destabilization.
It’s not a matter of Jesus/Isa (pbuh).
“but it is still better than others who (intentionally or not!) create interfaith hatred and destabilization.”
Those who create interfaith hatred are the urban kafir elites and the international organisations who privileged and protected Protestant missionaries as happened in Kyrgyzstan during the nineties for example.
Others who create social destabilisation are, for instance, foreign-supported ‘liberal’ organisations who support and advocate prostitution, again prevalent in Kyrgyzstan where the vulnerability of the population is being exploited in order to make the country serve as a social laboratory and its people as guinea pigs.
Still, this does not make faith-based NGOs somehow ‘better’ than secular NGOs.
They are both simply the means of penetration and they are both, in principle, against the status quo, which is the interest of the ruling party in country A. Both both seek to empower (either prostitute-lovers or religious bigots) a certain group and want them take over the driving seat.
Comments on this entry are closed.