Comments for Registan.net

Comment on Talking Politics in Afghanistan by Sebastian

Sebastian — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:14:41 +0000

I think this was the first time on your blog that I actually read some suggestions from you how to do better in Afghanistan. Normally, you are critising other articles and strategies, but unfortunately you very seldomly say how your approach would look like. Please feel encouraged to detail that further. It might be obvious to you, but for me as someone without any background in foreign affairs, it isn’t.

Comment on Framing Politics and the NDN by Will

Will — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:39:03 +0000

What is Worl game that involves throwing knives? I grew up in Uzbekistan and I don’t recall such a game.

Comment on Framing Politics and the NDN by Elena

Elena — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:22:36 +0000

I got to say, Now that US got what they wanted over their in Afganistan (which was Ben Ladin) now US should pull out and let the people handle it. After all is not the first time those countries been in this position and it wont be the last. If you ever grew up in Uzbekistan and played the Worl game in a dirt with trowing knives then you know this is exactly like this! This is all came down to who had a most power on the play ground!

Comment on Framing Politics and the NDN by Will

Will — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:16:12 +0000

“…(not coincidentally further enriching the Pakistani military-run trucking mafia along the way)…”
Can you refer readers like me to resources where we can read about this? I have read plenty already how NDN profits Uzbek regime, but nothing about how it profits Pakistan or others in the region (Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, etc.). It is hard to believe these countries are transparent to the degree that only Uzbekistan deserves disproportionate criticism.

Comment on Geldy Kyarizov’s Deteriorating Condition by Sarah Kendzior

Sarah Kendzior — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:40:21 +0000

There is simple explanation for the fact that Uzbekistan’s problems get more attention, and that is that there are more Uzbek-speaking people, and people from Uzbekistan (including ethnic Russians like the founder of Ferghana.ru), writing about them. The Andijon crackdown sent dozens of prominent Uzbek reporters and dissidents into exile and spurred websites that keep the focus on Uzbekistan’s human rights abuses going. There are also many Uzbek reporters and activists native to neighboring Central Asian states that write about Uzbekistan’s affairs. The editor of one major Uzbek opposition site is an Uzbek from Tajikistan; one of the most famous Uzbek reporters that covered human rights, Alisher Saipov, was an Uzbek from Kyrgyzstan. The diaspora has made it comparatively harder for Uzbekistan to control its informational borders. (Though it still does a thorough job.) Turkmenistan also has an active diaspora, but not in the numbers Uzbekistan does.

I agree that Turkmenistan’s problems should get more attention, but I don’t think it is surprising that they do not, given the linguistic and population issues. I also think the interest in the bizarre theatrics of the regime takes attention away from the more insidious, but less glamorous, problems of corruption, repression, etc.

Comment on Geldy Kyarizov’s Deteriorating Condition by Ian

Ian — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:54:36 +0000

Not distorting, telling you how one reader understands this. You’re the one who insisted there was an analogy between US energy trade in Turkmenistan and US military support to Uzbekistan, not me. So if there’s an analogy, presumably you think there could be more consistency between our US policies with the two countries. Or maybe not.

Who is ignoring Turkmenistan’s worse abuses?

Comment on Geldy Kyarizov’s Deteriorating Condition by Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:47:54 +0000

All of your options are silly. I’m pointing out that it’s limited and limiting to concern oneself to much with Uzbekistan’s abuses while ignoring Turkmenistan’s often worse abuses when in fact there is more at stake (arguably, with the energy stuff) in Turkmenistan. I’m arguing for more attention to Turkmenistan, which curiously isn’t in your list.

Try again, Ian. Maybe this time without distorting what I said.

Comment on Geldy Kyarizov’s Deteriorating Condition by Ian

Ian — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:45:18 +0000

It seems obvious to me that they’re different. But I’ll play along with your analogy. You seem to be saying one of these things:

a) We shouldn’t give either Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan any aid, nor should we let US corporations do business with them, because they repress their dissidents.
b) If no one cares about Turkmenistan’s repression of dissidents, why care about Uzbekistan’s so much that we stop trading or granting them military equipment. Let’s give Turkmenistan goggles too.
c) Policy on military cooperation and trade shouldn’t be based on principles on human rights, but let’s write Registan articles about our heartfelt concern about dissidents anyway.
d) Actually, this isn’t a very good analogy.

Which one do you prefer?

Comment on Geldy Kyarizov’s Deteriorating Condition by Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:14:35 +0000

Ian,

Sort of. Do you think it’s a bigger scandal that the U.S. gives Uzbekistan some non-gunlike equipment in exchange for passage through their territory, or that people are silent in Turkmenistan where there are massive oil and gas profits to be had?

I’m not sure, but I also don’t think they’re un-analogizable, either.

Comment on More IEDs, More Dead Civilians — ISAF’s 2011? Pretty Great Year by Steve C

Steve C — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:29:20 +0000

Dan, I was writing particularly about the messaging descriptions. “Targeting women and children” (a phrase I’ve seen used by UN officials in the past few days) is very different to the “ISAF should be more careful” approach to the use of air and artillery use.

If, with their criminally negligent use of IED’s, anti-government forces are “targeting” civilians, then so are ISAF with their criminally negligent use of air and artillery.