Mr. Obama, How About Sanctions – No Fly Zone – Observer League for Uzbekistan?

Let’s Make This Principled & Consistent; Let’s Go to War with All!

Uzbek1Our nation is famous for many things. Things that it is known for. Things that in one way or another represent it. Things that become synonymous with America or being Americans. Our foreign policy and our presidents are no exception. If you were to ask the recipients of our foreign policy there would be one adjective they’d all agree upon. Unanimously. There is one common and unanimously agreed upon ‘thing’ when it comes to US foreign policy and practices: It is called Hypocrisy. Granted there are slight variations here and there, but the never changing and ever present hypocrisy always remains.

Read the newspapers and watch the coverage of international news broadcast on our networks and cables. There it is. Glaring hypocrisy. Every single day. Hundreds of times a day. Listen to presidential and state department briefings and statements. There it is. Filled with it. Shameless hypocrisy. Check out our congressional records. Day in and Day out. Ever present. Consistent hypocrisy.

I could set up a whole new website to track US foreign policy hypocrisy examples, and it would be filled with them, tens of pages a day, and hundreds of instances. You don’t even need to have a well-developed hypocrisy-detector. It is so bold and obvious even way below-average processing minds can detect it! I am very serious.

uzbek2This morning I found at least 32 bold examples of our hypocrisy-ridden foreign policy, practices and rhetoric. And I was not even looking for them. They were everywhere: mainstream, pseudo-alternative streams, semi-alternative streams … You name it! I wanted to pick one and showcase it. I could have picked any of them: Bahrain, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, Israel, Turkey … Basically any of our ‘intimate allies’ in ‘this and that’ part of the world. You name it. However, I exercised a bit of self-restrain and settled for one. And, here it is [All Emphasis Mine]:

Obama Gives Uzbekistan free Pass to Terrorize Press

Why is the Obama administration sanctioning one post-Soviet dictator with an atrocious human rights record and not another?

Barack Obama has signed a new bill banning some top Belarusian officials from visiting the United States -- and requiring Washington to monitor restrictions on press freedom and human rights abuses in Belarus -- because President Alexandr Lukashenko wantonly jails political opponents and journalists.

Sound familiar?

Those are hallmarks of Uzbekistan strongman Islam Karimov’s regime, where journalists are regularly imprisoned and critics tortured. Says the Committee to Project Journalists (CPJ): “He personally oversaw the May 2005 massacre in the city of Andijan, and his regime virtually annihilated the independent press after it spread the word about those brutalities.” But instead of censure, Karimov “has received stunningly cordial treatment from the Obama administration,” including, in the past few months, a friendly phone call from the president and a visit from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Here is what CPJ had to Say:

There are scores of examples to position the Uzbek leader as far more brutal and dictatorial than Lukashenko's regime. The human rights abuses include forced child labor; arbitrary detentions and torture of detainees; harassment of lawyers and imprisonment of rights defenders; absolute state control over the media and Internet; and eviction of the last international monitor--Human Rights Watch--from its offices in Tashkent. All of these and other issues are listed in the U.S. State Department's own 2010 Human Rights report for Uzbekistan, which brands the country as "an authoritarian state."

Yet, in September, Karimov received a warm phone call from Obama, and heard appraisal on his "progress" in human rights from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her October visit to Tashkent. Also last year, the U.S. Congress removed what was left of the 2004 arms embargo imposed against Uzbekistan in connection with its grave human rights record.

And here is a bit of explanation (Not talking ‘justification’!) from Eurasia Net:

So why the double standard? The answer, as EurasiaNet readers know, is that Uzbekistan is essential to prosecuting the war in Afghanistan. Because Pakistan does not offer a reliable supply route to Afghanistan, Washington has turned to post-Soviet Central Asia for a transit corridor. Most supplies for the NATO war effort now arrive via the Northern Distribution Network, a web of rail and truck traffic that ultimately bottlenecks in Uzbekistan before crossing over into northern Afghanistan.

This isn’t the first time a respected watchdog has slammed the hypocrisy in Obama’s realpolitik. With Uzbekistan increasingly essential to the war, it won’t be the last.

uzbek3Yah, call it realpolitik, call it forced by necessity, call it whatever - everyone, anyone with a semi-working brain, would tell you what this is: hypocrisy. You see, the atrocious practices cited for Uzbekistan could be grounds (read ‘excuses’) for sanctions, no fly zone, embargo, and ultimately outright war if it were Syria, Iran, and soon to join the list-Venezuela. In this case, it is our dictator, it is our regime, and it is our water-carrying nation for our nasty-dirty-shady operations and wars. Thus, our president-government goes into its ‘praise-financial aid-military support-trade’ mode. Consistency is the enemy of hypocrisy. Otherwise, Mr. Obama would be talking Central Asia League Observers, Sanctions, and War Threats for Uzbekistan.

# # # #

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .


FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. knowbuddhau says:

    Thanks for pointing this out. The hypocrisy betrays a duplicitous mindset, a worldview that sees the unifying principle behind the disingenuousness. It reminds me of what F. William Engdahl said, in your interview with him some time back.

    TPTB have titanic flaw, an Achilles Heel of mythic proportions: they think they’re gods. The fact that the power of myth-master himself, Joseph Campbell, lectured for decades for State’s Foreign Service Institute for decades (beg. 1956) is highly instructive here. Combine that fact with archeological knowledge of a certain ancient Egyptian myth named, alarmingly enough, The Secret of the Two Partners, and we have a good idea of the USG’s systemic modus operandi.

    Engdahl also said, “State and the intel community weaponized democracy and human rights.” He mentioned the 1939 Rockefeller effort, The War and Peace Studies.

    After years of looking into this, it’s my considered opinion that early in the 20th century, the USG weaponized the power of myth and began wielding the very primordial power that brings into being the world stage on which we’re playing our notorious parts as just another “tool” in their “toolbox.” It’s of a piece with the reduction of all earthly life to Newton’s mechanics, the better to be mastered by our science and technology till Kingdom Come.

    That’s why I’ve been saying, the Secret of the Two Partners has been the USG’s MO all this time.

    JOSEPH CAMPBELL: And so we are now to recognize in the history of our subject a secondary stage of mythic seizure: not mythic identification, ego absorbed and lost in God, but its opposite, mythic inflation, the god absorbed and lost in ego. The first, I would suggest, characterized the actual holiness of the sacrificed kings of the early hieratic city states, and the second, the mock holiness of the worshiped kings of the subsequent dynastic states. For these supposed that it was in their temporal character that they were god. That is to say, they were mad men. Moreover, they were supported in this belief, taught, flattered, and encouraged, by their clergy, par¬ents, wives, advisers, folk, and all, who also thought that they were god. That is to say, the whole society was mad. Yet out of that madness sprang the great thing that we call Egyptian civilization. Its counterpart in Mesopotamia produced the dynastic states of that area; and we have adequate evidence, besides, of its force in India, the Far East, and Europe as well. In other words, a large part of the subject-matter of our science must be read as evidence of a psychological crisis of inflation.

    . . . .

    The pharaohs in their cult were no longer simply imitating the holy past, “so that the scripture might be fulfilled.” They and their priests were creating something of and for themselves. We are in the presence here of a line of grandiose, highly self-interested, prodigiously inflated egos.

    On the Narmer palette [see links below], which was worked on two sides, two crowns appeared, one on each face; and they represented the two Egypts, which again were represented by the interlaced necks of two symbolic beasts. On one side of the palette the pharaonic principle was represented in the bird form of the falcon Horus, on the other as a mighty bull

    . . . .

    Moreover, the ceremonial name of the Will, the final symbolic warrant of pharaonic rule, is the “Secret of the Two Partners.” What are we to think of that?

    The answer appears beneath the sands of Abydos, in the tombs of the pharaohs of Dynasty II, which are enormous and exhibit every evidence of a lavish display of suttee. . . . [T]he two antagonists, Horus the hero and Seth the villain of the piece, stand side by side, together and co-equal (Figure 12), while the monarch himself is termed “the appearing of the dual power in which the two gods are at peace.” 88

    The name of the Will, then, “the Secret of the Two Partners,” was a reference to the hidden understanding of the two gods, who, though they appear to be implacable enemies, are of one mind behind the scenes. . . . .Mythologically representing the inevitable dialectic of temporality, where all things appear in pairs, Horus and Seth are forever in conflict; whereas in the sphere of eternity, beyond the veil of time and space, where there is no duality, they are at one; death and life are at one; all is peace. And there it is known, also, that that same transcendent peace abides even in the cruelties of war. So that in the Narmer palette, where the pharaoh, with the lifted arm of Horus, slays the chieftain of the harpoon folk, together with six thousand enemies, who are here in the role of Seth, the scene is one of peace. And of this peace, which is the inhabiting reality of all things, all history and sorrow, the living god Pharaoh is the pivot. He is an epitome of the field—the universe itself—in which the pairs-of-opposites play. Hence, to follow him in death is to remain in life, there being in fact no death in the royal pasture beyond time, where the two gods are at one and the shepherd crook gives assurance. (outline format, much easier to see details)
    Figure 12. The Dual Power: Egypt, c. 2650 B.C.

    [(Campbell, 1962). The masks of god: oriental mythology, pp. 77-84. NY, NY: Penguin.]

    Just look at all the examples of the US using religions as weapons, esp in the so-called Holy Land.

    Thus it is with perfect equanimity that they speak with two faces: Engdahl was right, they really do think they’re gods. Problem for them is, we can all see right through their masks.

Speak Your Mind