Opinion Strategy before morality
Can the US question Uzbekistan on human rights abuse now that it is key to the supply route to Afghanistan?
There is perhaps no country on earth surrounded by more difficult neighbours than Afghanistan. When the US wants to ship materiel to its troops there,it cant go through Tajikistan because the roads are so poor; it cant go through Turkmenistan because that country maintains an isolationist neutrality; and,for obvious reasons,it cant go through Iran.
Until November 26,the US military shipped about a third of its supplies through Pakistan,but after an American attack killed 24 Pakistani soldiers,it cut off NATOs access to the border. The US military ships another third of its cargo to Afghanistan by air,but that costs so much more than shipping by land that to expand those operations would be prohibitively expensive. That leaves Uzbekistan.
Anticipating problems with Pakistan,Pentagon planners began putting together the Northern Distribution Network,a series of transit routes from Europe through the former Soviet Union. Nearly all of those routes converge at Termez,Uzbekistan,whose sleepy,dusty streets belie its strategic location: 75 per cent of the networks traffic passes through the town and across the Soviet-built Friendship Bridge into Afghanistan. Now,the US will have to ship even more military cargo through Uzbekistan,one of Washingtons least likeable allies.
Ruled since the Soviet era by President Islam Karimov,it is the fifth-most corrupt country in the world,according to Transparency International,and in Freedom Houses rankings of political and civil freedoms it is tied for last. The challenge for the US is to strike a balance between its short-term,war-fighting needs and long-term interests in promoting a stable,prosperous and democratic Central Asia, John Kerry wrote in the introduction to a report entitled Central Asia and the Transition in Afghanistan.
This is a difficult needle to thread,but Washington has so far largely succeeded. The US has kept the supply lines running while compromising little on its principles. Human rights advocates in Uzbekistan a small,beleaguered community still say that they feel like the US embassy is an ally.
But lately there have been signs that America may be wavering. The defence budget authorisation act passed on December 15 by Congress removed restrictions on military aid to Uzbekistan that had been in place since 2004 because of the countrys odious human rights record. Asked about that decision,Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said there had been progress on human rights and political freedoms,which,while not a realistic assessment of the situation,technically speaking is true.
This new,more accommodating rhetoric is embarrassing. If Clinton were to say: No,we dont agree with how Uzbekistans government runs its country. But we need their help in Afghanistan,and so were temporarily putting our differences aside, would anyone object? That is obviously the bargain being struck,and one that few in the US or Uzbekistan would take issue with. Though the US has consistently hectored Uzbekistan on human rights over the past two decades,the country has become more oppressive. The US-Uzbekistan military relationship has had its ups and downs the US operated an air base there from 2001 to 2005 and through it all,Karimov hasnt changed.
There is no question that as long as the US is in Afghanistan,it will need to engage with Uzbekistan. But how it chooses to engage can make all the difference.
JOSHUA KUCERA is a freelance reporter based in Washington
Share
