I didn't have a chance yesterday to note that the State Department has refused to certify Uzbekistan, citing concerns about human rights and democratization. Since almost day one of my blogging career I have been urging this as the correct policy, absent significant changes in the country's regime. But the issue is not an easy one, and I've come to see that some ambivalence is in order. I owe some of my ambivalence to the well-informed and intelligent criticism of decertification coming from The Argus, an excellent site devoted to all things Central Asian. And so, as soon as I get get the time to sort my thoughts out, I will try to explain why I think the folks at The Argus have got decertification, and indeed, the general thrust of U.S. "democracy building" wrong.
Posted by Chris at July 15, 2004 10:05 AMJust out of curiosity as you're getting your thoughts in order, do you support democracy-building policies at all?
I've noticed that most critics of the policy tend to view international relations as consisting of a collection of bilateral relationships. In other words, US-"Insert Country or Region Here" relations are handled as being in a vacuum. That doesn't necessarily mean that's the case with you, but I am curious.
I'm sure you know that my objection to this particular act is that it singles out Uzbekistan, is a small amount of money to make such a fuss over, and could backfire horribly. I don't care if it backfires for our strategic objectives so much as I do fear that it will backfire for the people of Uzbekistan. Democracy-promotion is walking a tightrope and not a place for dramtic and sudden movements.
That being said, this could certainly turn out for the best. I'm happy that it sends a stern message to the Uzbek government and a positive one to the Uzbek people and critics of the administration.
Posted by: Nathan Hamm at July 15, 2004 11:25 AM