“Semi-democratic meaning working with, ahem, semi-fairly elected bodies, rather than ruling by fiat.”

Well, um, by that definition, most Middle Eastern countries are semi-democratic. In fact, Saddam’s Iraq was semi-democratic!

“. Actually, after I posted this Musharraf surprised me by reneging on his pledge to quit his army post. I was under the impression that he already has.”

Wellllll… he has a long line of such broken pledges with that impression

Now that was disingenious from you. After the Americans have rejected the plans even based on a newspaper article, and strongly objected to plans behind their backs, why would the French and the Germans present those already dead plans?

The US government followed an “illogique de guerre”, or should we say they were hell-bent on getting their war. You should also recall that they foiled a Canadian, a Mexican-Chilean-etc. and another Franco-German plan, plus they rejected post-war Franco-German motions that would at least have limited the disaster the Occupation has become. Just imagine if the US had organised elections late last year, as France demanded - compare it to what we have now, and what prospects we have now, and then consider whether it was only about increasing France’s soft power.

By the way, Voice of America for Usbekistan was turned off in August, with phony excuses:

http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/rca2/rca2_307_3_eng.txt

Here’s what Webster has to say about police state. Semi-democratic meaning working with, ahem, semi-fairly elected bodies, rather than ruling by fiat. Actually, after I posted this Musharraf surprised me by reneging on his pledge to quit his army post. I was under the impression that he already has.

How does the implementation of blasphemy law, the continued nuclear development, and the pardon for chief nuclear propagator Khan fit into your picture?

Perfectly. Pakistan makes a very messy picture. I agree that propping up dictators for fear of hostile opposition is lame policy, except that propping up the opposition with cookie-cutter terms like “dictator” and “true democracy” might not fair better. I personally would like the US to be as deft in supporting civil society and the Saudis have been in promoting Wahhabism, and it clearly doesn’t have upper hand in this friendly match. However, if someone told me they know what to do about Pakistan, my first instinct would be to run.

As for Uzbekistan, I remember reading soundbites from diplomats to the effect that Karimov is very good at auditioning for the role of constructive engagement poster boy. The decision may have had something to do with PR (although most people apparently blinked and missed it), but I suspect it was largely due to Karimov’s promises catching up to him in due time. The quotation above strikes as disingenuous since the author neglects to mention that the additional Pentagon aid is part of the package to prevent the proliferation of biological weapons. I’m not sure what the Japanese had in mind with their road construction loan, but luckily they have their own government, which means for the time being I can leave it to them to worry about, and devote myself to more rewarding pursuits. Like sleep.

Here’s the first link with some relevant references that I turned up for the Halabja report. I’m not sure if Ranglawa was aware of the existence of classified evidence beyond the public report, but, other than that, I don’t feel I can take a position in this argument. My only point was that I’m not convinced the US acted in bad faith on the UN resolution.

Thanks for the timeline on the Franco-German Iraq plan. The English version of the Spiegel article is still available for free. I’m not entirely convinced about this particular angle. There certainly were people in the French and German camp who genuinely worked to avert the war, just as I’m willing to suppose that at least some folks in the Bush administration really felt at one time that a “Drohkulisse” was the only feasible means of getting Saddam to disarm without a full-blown invasion. Nonetheless, the US government followed a “logique de guerre”, while the mighty French diplomacy followed the logic of making sure the war discredits the US and improves France’s own soft power as much as possible. The first news of the plan sounded tantalizing because it promised a mechanism of intervention that could allow both the US and Saddam to step down without falling flat on their respective faces. I thought something of that kind would have merited a pinch of displomatic grit, even if tempers were sour and everyone immediately assumed a red herring. In the formally publicized version it was indeed scarcely distinguishable from a device to stall the motion for the new resolution with a self-advertising bonus. Although I’m sure Joschka Fischer meant well.

Hm. What is “semi-democratic”, and what is a police state? How does the implementation of blasphemy law, the continued nuclear development, and the pardon for chief nuclear propagator Khan fit into your picture?

“I mean, just because American rhetoric can be simplistic, doesn’t mean the policy has to be, too.”

Agreed wholeheartedly, but I don’t see any thought-through policy in place. Not forcing a dictator to reconstruct true democracy and cede power to an elected government in fear of a fundy takeover is not a forward-looking policy, it will only make the fundies even stronger and more popular.

[Karimow also operates a ruthless police state] “Which is why the Yanks yanked the discretionary aid a couple of months ago, I’m glad to say.”

Thanks for the link and the news, I missed it in the month I neither blogged nor read much.

However, if concern for human rights in Karimov’s police state had been the reason to remove the discretionary aid, the US govt. wouldn’t have granted it him in the first place, wouldn’t have employed delaying tactics for half a year following the State Department human rights report, and withdraw troops (and thus Karimow’s income in form of the lease for the base). Methinks constant bad PR was the reason. And it looks a lot more like smokescreen PR when you read this (I found it in an article after a little Googling around):

According to Karimov Japan recently gave around $147 million with no strings attached. That is precisely the type of aid sought by Tashkent, particularly since the U.S. State Department cut aid to Uzbekistan by $18 million for failing to meet criterion including adequate progress in human rights. The Pentagon followed this critical gesture by offering $21 million in further aid, a move that not only comforts Karimov but also serves to confirm in his own mind the validity of his cause.

1991? Hm, do you have a source?

To my knowledge, the story of such a secret Pentagon report dates from early 1990, and is based on the argument that Iraq didn’t had the type of chemical weapon apparently used (something disproved later by UNSCOM); complemented by another, public report published by the US Army War College the same year, that claims both Iraq and Iran were responsible (the latter is torn to pieces here by Dr. Glen Ranglawa; also note his reference to investigations showing the Iranian CW programme was only in pilot stage).

Yeah, Soros did more to undermine communism than supposed Victors Over Commmunism Reagan and Papa Bush combined. Worth to note, after 1989, Soros received the same treatment from the nationalists here in Eastern Europe as what he gets now from the Repubs - so, you can hope, he is prepared