Got some oil? We’ll look the other way.
Today’s Guardian has an article about America’s reluctance to come down on Karimov in Uzbekistan.
America has too much at stake (i.e. oil) to come down on Uzbekistan. What does that mean for activists in other key oil allied states like AZ?
The Guardian article says:
Soon other former Soviet republics will have to decide whether to take a leaf from Mr Karimov’s freshly penned textbook. The White House’s “beacons of liberty” rhetoric has fomented dreams of - and even plans for - revolution in the oil giants of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, both expecting elections by the end of the year that the government will characteristically try to fix.
and
Mr Aliev felt comfortable enough in his relationship with Washington to ban a demonstration planned for the previous Saturday - protesting for free parliamentary elections this November - so as not to spoil the atmosphere for Wednesday’s ceremony. When the protest went ahead all the same, he sent in the riot police, who hit some demonstrators with truncheons and made 100 arrests.
Pro-democracy revolutions are a luxury when geopolitical issues such as hydrocarbons are at stake.
What about Armenia? It is lucky that it doesn’t have to worry about geocarbons?
The Guardian article seemed to be a little vague and also, the author didn’t seem to realzie that the US Embassy has been the target of pr-government attacks in Az recently because it has tried to engage the opposition. Okay, maybe a little too late but this no more or no less what’s happened in Armenia — a country without oil.
Of course, if there is a pro-oil US policy in the Caucasus and on the other side of the Caspian, this will affect Armenia just because US policies are regional and not country-specific. Besides, Armenia is technically still at war with Azerbaijan. That said, I welcome news of US-sponsored exit polls for the November 2003 Elections.
On the subject of Uzbekistan, however, depsite the carnage, many people are unhappy about the western media coverage and seem to be selectively quoting satatistics without putting them into context. For example, in this Guardian article it raises the issue of $50 million in aid. In 2002, US assistance to Uzbekistan was nearly $300 million and the reason for this hug reduction has apparently been because the US is unhappy with the human rights and democratic situation in the country.
I actually think the following link is well argued (make sure you follow the links in the text as well):
http://www.tradingtimes.co.uk/blogging/archives/2005_05_15_archive.html#111669835576264498
Still, democracy for all please but in a way that promotes stability and doesn’t risk internal or external conflict — a major problem with this region. Still, the November parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan will be the real test.
Comment by Onnik — 6/1/2005 @ 11:11 am