K2 versus Human Rights in Uzbekistan

U.S. Evicted From Air Base In Uzbekistan

The US has been facing a serious dilemma in its relations with Uzbekistan after the massacres in May in the city of Andijan.

While State Departement has been clear in its condemnation of what happened, and has called for an international investigation, the Pentagon has been equally clear in wanting to keep its critical so called K2 air base which is the main hub for both US and international operations in Afghanistan.

It’s been a true dilemma – and interesting to watch how the controversies around it have unfolded.

But now the dilemma has evidently been resolved by President Kamirov, who has asked the US to leace K2 within 180 days. He wants to be free to terrorize his own people in order to be able to stay in power.

We’ll see what happens. 180 days is a long time. But it must be slightly embarrasing for Washington that it was Kamirov rather than them that said that the base there is hardly possible to combine with a firm stance for human rights.

2 Responses to K2 versus Human Rights in Uzbekistan

  1. Björn Hallberg skriver:

    It should also be noted that Uzbekistan has a long history of violations, most of which were ignored by the US.

    While Andijan seems like a timely complaint by the US it is nothing but a token protest after years of silence and complicity. The US most likely even trained the troops that were deployed against the protesters ironically. And it sure took some time even after most of the world had already reacted. For the longest time, the US called the rioters ”terrorists” and did that whole charade.
    For Uzbekistan, they that react to the largely insincere complaint and evict the US when a more tangible reason is the struggle of influence between Russia and the US in the region. At any rate, the world is now aware of what is going on in Uzbekistan and the US may have to abandon one of the key components in their global empire of bases. It’s important to see that host countries object, to see a spirit of resistance even if it may be and likely is for the wrong reasons. Lets just hope it doesn’t go the way of Greece in 1967.

  2. Sven K skriver:

    Since the base is used for humanitarian purposes and US-activites in the region is basically pro-democratic and supported by the free world, Bildts remark seems somewhat left driven, but what to expect from a genuine Swedish politician who wants to please both sides?

    The role of the US can be compared to that of the Red Cross. When there is suffering, access is the priority point.

    Rewarding a regime with dollars in exchange for a facility makes perhaps a difference, but not necessarily.

%d bloggare gillar detta: