Comments on: Uzbekistan and the ghost of Neville Chamberlain

By: neweurasia.net » Shakespeare in Ashgabad, part 2: to engage or not to engage — that is the question

Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:51:01 +0000

[...] Schwartz, Pravdin, and Musafirbek have all meditated on the “to engage or not to engage?” [...]

By: Schwartz

Schwartz — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:58:21 +0000

@Laura, this piece is more of a reflection than a prescription for what should done.

Nevertheless, speaking for myself, I think the opposite: we need to take some version the Hamm position (for Nathan’s clarifications on his position, see his comments below).

And thank you for the comment! I hoped it would be thought-provoking. :-)

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:31:25 +0000

Now that I am home and had a chance to read more closely, I’ll add that from my perspective, “redemption” doesn’t have a place in foreign policy. States don’t redeem their sovereign peers, but segments of democratic polities sure do try to redeem themselves by calling for certain state behaviors.

I think I’ve been pretty clear on Registan.net when I’ve periodically written about US-Uzbekistan relations over the past several years that I still do think that using diplomacy as a venue for the rhetoric of human rights activists is a self-defeating, masturbatory endeavor. At the same time, I’ve said that accepting overtures from Uzbekistan should be done with great caution. But normal, day-to-day exchanges and cooperation on areas of mutual interest is a good thing.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:05:39 +0000

Turgai, I think pretty much the same thing. But I really don’t think either approach is too productive.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:23:09 +0000

All I’ve really got to say is that I don’t think Murray is a “small-minded fanatic.” We fundamentally disagree on our approaches to foreign policy. I still think my approach is more productive, and I assume he still thinks I’m wrong.

By: Turgai Sangar

Turgai Sangar — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:22:21 +0000

“We’re the ones who’ve been baited by the carrot – a carrot rotten with duplicity.”

Nicely put. Look, neither stick nor carrot actually work. Europe’s attitude towards the regime in Uzbekistan is clumsy at best. Personally, I don’t see any ghost of Chamberlain but rather of the cozied-up Cold War-era dictators like Siad Barré and Duvalier.

Murray had certainly his merits by bringing up the situation in Uzbekistan for a larger audience yet discredited the efforts by turning it into a soap. As for Nathan, it would be interesting to know whether he still thinks the same as back in 2005.

By: Laura

Laura — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:35:35 +0000

I really enjoyed this thought-provoking piece. Is one of the implications of this argument that we should stick with a hard line because in the end, we are only really responsible for our own redemption?