QUESTION: Could you share with us any progress with the ongoing meeting between the 5+1+Iran?
MR. VENTRELL: Yeah. So we understand that the P-5+1 and Iran
met for almost three hours today, during which the P-5+1 presented a
serious, revised proposal. Further discussions also took place during
the evening, and the entire group will reconvene again tomorrow at 11
a.m. local time. And you heard the Secretary obviously speak earlier
today where he said we encourage Iran to make concrete steps in order to
begin addressing the international community’s concerns.
QUESTION: Would these concrete steps take, like, the specific suggestion by Iran that they will accept 5 percent enrichment, for instance?
MR. VENTRELL: You know, Said, I’m not going to get into the details of this ongoing diplomacy. Let’s let the negotiators do their work.
QUESTION: How would you characterize the atmosphere in the talks?
MR. VENTRELL: I don’t think I’m going to characterize it
beyond that other than to say, as I just mentioned, it went on for three
hours and further discussions will take place tomorrow.
QUESTION: Well, what do you hope to achieve at these talks? I
mean, clearly a deal is not going to be reached at this. So do you hope
to come out of it with a commitment for another round, or what are you
hoping to achieve?
MR. VENTRELL: Look, I don’t want to preview anything as we go into the second day.
QUESTION: You can’t even say what you hope to achieve at these talks? I mean --
MR. VENTRELL: Well, what we hope to achieve, and what we said all along is our goal --
QUESTION: I don’t --
MR. VENTRELL: -- is that we want Iran to change its behavior. Yeah.
QUESTION: I don’t think that’s going to happen by the end of
tomorrow. So I’m just wondering, like, what would you see as an
indicator of progress? Another round, maybe?
MR. VENTRELL: Again, I’m not going to preview that today. Let’s talk again tomorrow.
QUESTION: Any bilateral --
MR. VENTRELL: Samir.
QUESTION: -- meetings take place?
MR. VENTRELL: I don’t have anything for you on that.
QUESTION: And then how do you square the fact that no matter
what comes out of these talks, tomorrow or the day after the Supreme
Leader can just say something that totally negates all the progress that
you had in the talks? We’ve seen it many times that you think you see
some positive movement from Iran, from the Foreign Minister or the
negotiator or something, and then the next day the Supreme Leader kind
of pours water on the whole thing.
MR. VENTRELL: Look, we’ve been very clear that we want the
full Iranian regime to change its behavior on this. And so we’ll
continue to meet with his appointed negotiator, the Supreme Leader’s
appointed negotiator, through the P-5+1 process. But beyond that, I
don’t have anything for you.
Why? Because it makes a moral equivalency between a democratic state under the rule of law -- Israel -- and Iran, a tyranny. It elevates the immoralities of supporting the Shah or Saddam in his war against Iran somehow above the horrors of the theocratic state of Iran today, which is responsible for massacres, arrests, torture, and assassinations abroad -- and not to mention the sponsorship of terrorists in many places.
It's like this huge, broad, blind spot on the left.
It's why the leftist narrative about the Oscars was all against Argo and in favour of Lincoln -- Slate led the charge on whining about this.
The round of talks is between Iran and the so-called P5 or permanent five members of the UN Security Coucil -- Russia, China,
France, the UK, and the US -- plus an aspiring member of the Security Council who has been an elected member in the past -- Germany. It's good they're having this in Almaty and not making these diplomats hoof it to the artificially-constructed capital of Astana, which is inconvenient, I'm told.
I just don't think there's much new here, from either the US or Iran, and that Kazakhstan's presence doesn't add much.
To be sure, the Central Asian countries deal more effectively with Iran than the US. That is, they have their quarrels and boycotts and temporary cessation of rail projects (like Turkmenistan) and make-ups and problems, too, but nothing like the US.
Whenever the I-ranter comes to one of these countries, you never hear him spouting about the Jews, the Great Satan, the need to wipe Israel off the map, the scourge of Western civilization, etc. but he just talks normally and boringly like a Soviet bureaucrat about potash or rail ties, and then sometimes they'll have a carefully-choreographed spring ritual for Novruz, and maybe he'll give presents to the other potentates. But the rhetoric is completely dialed down.
What is Kazakhstan's value-add? Well, in some ways, maybe it's the new hegemon on Central Asia, and not Uzbekistan anymore, simply because it gets along with Russia better (has a big Russian minority), its economy is doing better, and Western oil companies get along better with it than, say, Turkmenistan.
Kazakhstan is considered some sort of "no nukes" state that will spread the non-proliferation idea to others. But I think that's to miss the unique circumstances that got Astana to part with its nukes: the Russian deal made at the collapse of the Soviet Union, that essentially, in exchange for your sovereignty, you have to give us your nukes. That was an offer they couldn't refuse. Kazakhstan's deal seems to have worked out better than, say, Belarus', but then, Kazakhstan is in the Soviet Re-Union efforts Putin has re-constructed and others aren't.
Here they are at State, fumbling around...
QUESTION: The talks start tomorrow in Almaty --
MR. VENTRELL: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- for the first time in a few months. And Catherine
Ashton’s office today said that they’re a serious effort to try and
break stalemate and get to – get things moving. Can you tell us what the
United States or the what the P5+1 is bringing to the table that might
make Iran rethink?
MR. VENTRELL: Well, without getting into the details, because
we need to let the negotiators do their jobs, we do have a serious,
updated proposal. And we hope that the Iranian regime will make the
strategic decision to come to the talks that start tomorrow in
Kazakhstan prepared to discuss substance so that there can be progress
in addressing the international community’s concerns. You heard
Secretary Kerry talk about this this morning, and we do have a serious
updated proposal, and our proposal does include reciprocal measures that
encourage Iran to make concrete steps to begin addressing the
international community’s concerns.
But beyond that, I think we really need to let the negotiators – our
team is out there. This will begin tomorrow morning their time, and we
need to let them do their work.
QUESTION: There are reports out there that among the measures
on the Western side, if you want to call it that, could be a lifting
sanctions on the gold and metal trades. Would that be something that you
could --
MR. VENTRELL: Beyond saying that we have reciprocal measures
that encourage Iran to make concrete steps, I’m really not going to get
into the details. We need to let our negotiators work.
QUESTION: You said, “serious, updated,” not seriously updated, right?
MR. VENTRELL: A serious, updated proposal.
QUESTION: Okay. So that doesn’t imply that it’s been dramatically altered from previous negotiations last year?
MR. VENTRELL: I mean, it’s serious --
QUESTION: And updated.
MR. VENTRELL: -- and it’s also updated.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Do you --
QUESTION: You were saying that --
QUESTION: And all the other ones were serious too, right?
MR. VENTRELL: We’ve always come to the table ready to engage seriously.
QUESTION: All right. So if you were to judge the difference
between this negotiation and the last one, the actual offer on the table
isn’t dramatically different than previously?
MR. VENTRELL: There’s nothing more that I’m going to say about the offer on the table. Let’s let our negotiators work.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: You mentioned reciprocal measures to --
MR. VENTRELL: Reciprocal measures, yeah.
QUESTION: -- to help Iran take the decision?
MR. VENTRELL: Yeah.
QUESTION: So some things will happen before Iran takes a drastic measure on UN resolutions or on stopping its nuclear program or whatever?
MR. VENTRELL: I’m just not going to get into it beyond what I said before.
QUESTION: Well, generally, do you feel optimistic going into
these talks? Is the United States hopeful that there might be a change
in the Iranian position?
MR. VENTRELL: I mean, we want them to make the strategic
decision. We’re obviously – as the Secretary said, there is time and
space for diplomacy, but it’s not infinite time, and we clearly want –
we’ve come with a serious proposal, and we want to – we hope that the
Iranians have come with the strategic decision that they’re going to
change their behavior.
QUESTION: But the fact – excuse me – but the fact that they
are using these new centrifuges, dramatically trying to increase their
enrichment capability and purity, doesn’t necessarily signal that
they’re ready to negotiate an end to their nuclear program.
MR. VENTRELL: Well, as Toria said last week, that’s a tactic they’ve used in the past coming into talks. And let’s see what happens.
QUESTION: You think it’s a tactic, or you think they’re trying
to build a nuclear – I thought you thought that the reason they were
using these centrifuges is to build a nuclear weapon?
MR. VENTRELL: I mean, clearly we have concerns about the
Iranian program. But beyond that, all I’ll say is that that’s something
that they’ve done in the past in the lead up to talks. Not necessarily
one specific action or another, but that seems to be part of their
strategy.
Okay.
QUESTION: Procedurally, what will happen tomorrow? Is it just
one day of talks, and then everyone goes away to consider their
positions? Or is there a possibility it could go to two, or --
MR. VENTRELL: The talks in the past have sometimes gone into a second day. Let’s see what happens.
Samir.
QUESTION: Do you have a readout on why Under Secretary Sherman is going to Israel?
MR. VENTRELL: I don’t have any information on that. I’ll have to look into it.
QUESTION: You guys put out a statement.
MR. VENTRELL: Oh, we have already put it out?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. VENTRELL: I’m sorry. I --
QUESTION: She’s going to brief them on the topics. (Laughter.)
MR. VENTRELL: Anything else?
QUESTION: Wait. But you put out a statement that she will go Israel --
QUESTION: Oh. Is she going to brief them?
QUESTION: -- Saudi Arabia, and --
QUESTION: Is she going to Israel and these countries to brief them on the talks?
MR. VENTRELL: Okay. Guys, I didn’t realize in this thing we
put out announcing her travel that it included that detail. Let me look
into it. I’ll have some more information for you tomorrow.
QUESTION: Do you have the statement?
MR. VENTRELL: I don’t have it in my book right now.
So here we have it now (distributed today), so we don't just have to listen to Russian analyst speculation or my newsletter, we can hear it from the Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia himself, in answer to some journalists in Dushanbe:
No, the US will not use Tajikistan as its backyard or a doormat on its way out of Afghanistan.
But really, the next questions for the journalists to have asked, if they had had an opportunity before the Assistant Secretary was whisked away on the tarmac, would be something like these:
o But is the US training special ops teams or intelligence-related personnel or troops so that we have a close working relationship with the oppressive government of Tajikistan regarding post-withdrawal Afghanistan?
o But just how many US troops and advisers will remain in Tajikistan, and will this number grow, and will there be any kind of informal cooperation with the abusive government of Tajikistan around something like Ayni or any other location?
o But does the US feel that it is constrained by the presence of Russian troops and Russian plans/intentions regarding Tajikistan?
o Say, why *won't* the operation take place through Tajikistan, but takes place through Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and of course Russia (60% of the NDN chokehold is in Russia)? Is life about choices among Eurasian tyrants or are there logistical issues with road or rail conditions or something?
o Could you be more specific then, if you aren't literally going to run the US troops backward out of Tajikistan, and you aren't going to literally help Tajikistan through the base in Ayni, what *will* you will be doing militarily in terms of helping the authoritarian government of Tajikistan to have stability?
Robert O. Blake, Jr. Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs
Palace of Nations
Dushanbe, Tajikistan
February 20, 2013
Assistant Secretary Blake:
Well good evening everyone. I’ve just concluded a very productive
meeting with his Excellency President Rahmon. I had the opportunity to
thank President Rahmon for his very strong support of stabilization
efforts in Afghanistan and for his strong support of the U.S. and
international coalition efforts in Afghanistan. We discussed how we can
continue to strengthen our cooperation in the areas of border security,
counterterrorism, and counternarcotics. I congratulated President Rahmon
on the progress that Tajikistan has made in its efforts to join the
World Trade Organization that will occur very soon and I remarked that
this will be an important step in facilitating trade and regional
integration in this region. We also discussed the importance of free,
transparent and fair elections in the elections that will take place in
November; as well as the importance of allowing space for
nongovernmental organizations, for journalists, and for other members of
civil society. I will be giving a press conference tomorrow but I’ll be
glad to take one or two questions now.
Question: Did you have a chance to discuss with the President,
issues related to military cooperation, in particular, using the
territory of Tajikistan for transportation of some cargo for
Afghanistan, for some joint cooperation there? Did you discuss issues of
the use of one of our airports in the remote region of Ayni for the use
of military operations and for the purposes of military cooperation
with Afghanistan?
Assistant Secretary Blake: No, we didn’t discuss any use of
any Tajik airport either now or in the future but we did discuss, in
general, our cooperation on Afghanistan and again particularly the
importance of continuing to strengthen our cooperation in the areas of
border security and counternarcotics and counterterrorism particularly
now that this very important transition in Afghanistan is beginning.
I’ll take one more question.
Question [BBC/Tajikistan]: Does the U.S. government have an
intention to withdraw its troops very soon through the territory of
Tajikistan and if yes, how will Tajikistan benefit from it?
Assistant Secretary Blake: No, as you all know, the President
of the United States announced during his State of the Union speech that
the United States would be halving the number of troops in Afghanistan
by February of next year, but I don’t expect that that operation will
take place through Tajikistan. But nonetheless I do want to express our
support for Tajikistan’s efforts to help the stabilization for
Afghanistan and we very much count on those efforts continuing. And
again, I’ll be glad to take your questions tomorrow. Thank you very
much.
This is my little blog on Tajikistan that comes out on Saturdays. I was travelling abroad and working on a project this last month so I missed two weeks, but I hope to be back on track. If you are reading this on TinyLetter you will have to come to my blog Different Stans for the links in RU and TJ as these are blocked by this mail system. Write me at [email protected] with comments or requests to be added to the mailing list.
HEADLINES
o US Secretary of State Visits Tajikistan
o Tajik President Calls on Army to Resist External Threats
o Journalist Stabbing a Warning for Tajik Opposition
COMMENTARY
Assistant Secretary of State Robert O. Blake, Jr. visited Dushanbe February 20-21 and met with President Emomali Rahmon. There is nothing on the US Embassy Dushanbe web site (yet) about this meeting, and only a picture on the Embassy Facebook page; very little anywhere else.
The independent Tajik press reported an alleged offer to make Tajikistan available for NATO equipment withdrawals, but the official did not seem very high level and later the same press reported just on the English-language page reported "Washington reprotedly does not plan to use Tajikistan’s infrastructure
during the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan." So the US seemed to be saying "thanks but no thanks". Too mountainous?
Into this vacuum of information steps a Russian analyst as usual, speculating that the purpose of Blake's trip was to shore up commitments from Dushanbe to let US and NATO military "obyekty" (installations) stay on the territory of Tajikistan. It's interesting that he doesn't say "troops," although there are some US "troops" in Tajikistan doing training and advising. He talks about the "obyekty" (facilities) which in a sense are what the US is already helping with by donating equipment.
The Russian analyst Anatoly Knyazev from the Institute for Oriental Studies believes the US will bribe officials and support a "thin layer" of students and nationalist intellectuals ("thin layer" is old Soviet Pravda parlance for a discredited social class not according to the Marxist-Leninist plan). This "thin layer" - the Oreo cookie filling smushed between Russia and the US and ready to be dipped into the milk of China (so I'm visualizing vividly now) is not really going to be allowed to succeed, as the US won't fund them, but they will be used to put pressure on Rahmon. Mkay.
Meanwhile, USAID is busy funding comic books in the Tajik language, so I don't think anyone's going to be colouring outside the lines...
Note that in the US photo op, Rahmon is smiling and the chandelier is featured. Note that in the Tajik photo op Rahmon is frowning and the wallpaper is featured. Also, note that the flower display at these things are always done beautifully.
The Tajik military parade last week provided an opportunity for Dushanbe to show off their hardware including some still-shiny Chaikas. Haven't seen those in awhile.
The trial of the suspect in the killing of the security official in Badakhshan last year has opened, and surprise, surprise, it's behind closed doors.
There was a bit of a kerfluffle with an Iranian presidential candidate speaking of a "Greater Iran" and Iran "taking back" Tajikistan, Armenian and Azerbaijan, but...well, when we saw the phrase "presidential candidate" we knew that this story couldn't be true, because those things are real in the Iranian dictatorship. Anyway, Ahmadineajad is coming to Dushanbe for the spring festival of Novruz in a few weeks and surely they'll sort things out. Meanwhile, we learn from RFE/RL and @eTajikistan that 29% of the 2000 plus foreign students in Tajikistan come from Iran.
U.S. Assistant Secretary for South and
Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake has called on Tajikistan's leadership
to hold a fair, democratic, and transparent presidential election in
November.
Blake started his two-day visit to Dushanbe on February 20 and has met with NGO representatives and civil-society activists.
No doubt this meeting had more people in it than Blake's meeting in Turkmenistan.
Assistant
Secretary of State for Central and South Asia Robert O. Blake, Jr. and
President Emomali Rahmon of Tajikistan, February 20, 2013. Photo by President.tj.
President.tj reports:
It was emphasized that the US continues to provide support to
Tajikistan's initiatives to intensify its struggle with terrorism,
extremism, unlawful narcotics trade, and to further assist in the
strengthening of the defense of the state borders with Afghanistan, and
material and technical provision of the relevant state agencies.
DUSHANBE, February 14, 2013, Asia-Plus -- Tajik Ambassador to the
United States, Nouriddin Shamsov, has called on Washington to remove
Tajikistan from Jackson-Vanik restrictions.
According to Silk Road Newsline, Ambassador Shamsov has noted that
Tajik economy shows steady progress, the country will officially join
the WTO on March 2, 20012 and it’s time for the United States to
graduate Tajikistan from the restrictive Jackson-Vanik amendment.
“My government anticipates continuing effective bilateral cooperation
with U.S. Government to lift as soon as possible the Jackson-Vanik
amendment which would impede as we do believe full fledged membership of
Tajikistan in the WTO and further promotion of bilateral trade and
investment relations with the Unites States of America,” Shamsov told a
panel on the WTO at the at the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute (CACI) in
Washington on February 13.
Tajikistan is ready to offer its territory for transit of freight by
international allied forces in Afghanistan, and there are no obstalces
regarding this issue. Davlat Nazriev, head of the Agency for
Information, Press Analysis and Foreign Policy Planning of the Foreign
Affairs of Tajikistan announced at a briefing.
"In the event of an appeal from any country, this question will be reviewed through the established procedures," he emphasized.
The purpose of Robert Blake's visit to Dushanbe is to obtain a final decision on the issue of deploying American and NATO military facilities on the territory of Tajikistan, since the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan has already begun, and the US immediately demands hard guarantees, says Aleksandr Knyazev, coordinator of regiona programs for the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Seciences, regnum.ru reported February 20.
In the expert's opinion, "It is still not too late for Russia to stop this process, otherwise before the end of this year, another process may be initiated regarding the withdrawal of the Russian military base from Tajikistan. Evidently the US is placing its bets on Rahmon according to the principle, 'he's a bastard but our bastard," and it's understandable that they are absolutely indifferent to the nation of this regime when it's a question of the strategic plans for deploying part of the troops withdrawn from Afghanistan in the countries of the region."
Knyazev sees the situation crudely -- bribes to key officials, and support for a "thin layer of Westernized youth" and some of the intelligentsia that are "nationalist-minded" and see the West as "the lesser of two evils". This "layer" will activate "numerous Western NGOs for 'colour scenarios', not to really bring them about but as "a lever of pressure on Rahmon".
The United States Embassy in Dushanbe, Export Control and Related
Border Security program (EXBS) and Office of Military Cooperation (OMC)
provided twenty-two All - Terrain Vehicles (ATV’s), thirty-three light
trucks and additional tactical equipment to the Government of
Tajikistan. The ATV’s will be distributed to border posts throughout
Tajikistan to assist Border Guard units in their efforts to combat
contraband from entering and transiting the country. The light trucks
and tactical equipment will similarly benefit Border Guard detachments,
outposts, and units, increasing their capacity for securing the Tajik
border from external threats.
Deputy Chief of Mission, Sarah Penhune participated in a donation
ceremony at the Border Guard Facility in Dushanbe. Ms. Penhune
remarked, “The United States Government shares the goals of the
Government of Tajikistan to combat the threat of contraband and drug
trafficking and recognizes that keeping Tajikistan’s borders secure is a
national priority. The Border Guards are the first line of defense for
Tajikistan from external threats, and they are frequently required to
carry out this important work with limited resources, in very difficult
terrain, and often during very challenging weather conditions. The U.
S. Embassy EXBS and OMC programs are pleased to assist the Border Guard
in their efforts to combat the threat of contraband and drug
trafficking.”
At a meeting to honour the 20th anniversary of Tajikistan's Armed Forces, the president called on the military and law-enforcement agencies to take into account growing "threats of modernity" such as terrorism, extremism and narcotics, regnum. ru and president.tj reported.
"I have noted many times and emphasize once again that security the security of the state and nation, protecting civilian life and the socio-economic development of the country directly depends on the political situation, law and order, guarantee of the rule of law, combatting crime and protecting our boarders," the news agency Avesta reported, citing the president.
A Russian human rights activist who has worked closely with Sattori suggests
[ru] that the assault on Sattori was a “political order,” and that the
journalist was punished for his ties with Quvvatov and his recent
attempts to mobilize international pressure in order to prevent the
politician's extradition to Tajikistan. It is unclear what the
journalist himself makes of the attack. In his interview with Radio
Ozodi, Sattori said [ru] he did not know whom to blame for an apparent attempt on his life. A bit later, however, he told [ru] BBC he knew who was behind the attack, suggesting also that this was a powerful person within the Tajik government.
A court in Ukraine has ruled that former Tajik Prime Minister Abdumalik
Abdullojonov can be held in detention for up to 40 days while
authorities await documents from Dushanbe regarding his possible
extradition.
Abdullojonov was arrested on February 5 at Boryspil Airport near Kyiv on
an international warrant after arriving from the United States.
Tajikistan's Foreign Ministry has made an official announcementi n which it has condemned the statement by Ayatollah Said Muhammad Bokiri Harrozi, a presidential candidate, that in the event that he becomes president of Iran, then Tajikistan, Armenia and Azerbaijan will be returned to Iran, news.tj reported.
The Foreign Minister noted that the statement appeared on http://cheshmandaz.org on February 5.
Ahmadinejad will visit Tajikistan in the last week of March to meet with the Tajik president, attend Novruz celebrations, and attend the launch of Sangtuda Hydropower Station No. 2
"They support democratic transitions in 'Kyrzakhstan' and Georgia,
mindful from our own experience that it takes a long time to get
democracy right, and that it rarely happens right away.”
In a telephone conversation Kerry also thanked Kazakhstan for agreeing to hold talks on Iran's nukes.
State.gov's transcript has it correctly as "Kyrgyzstan". But at about 30:14 or so on the video tape, you can hear Kerry make a slight muff of the name of this Central Asian country. Even so, the overall message in support of democracy, lest anyone think only the neo-cons will carry this torch, is clear:
We value human rights, and we need to tell the story of America’s
good work there, too. We know that the most effective way to promote the
universal rights of all people, rights and religious freedom, is not
from the podium, not from either end of Pennsylvania Avenue. It’s from
the front lines – wherever freedom and basic human dignity are denied.
And that’s what Tim Kaine understood when he went to Honduras.
The brave employees of State and USAID – and the Diplomatic Security
personnel who protect the civilians serving us overseas – work in some
of the most dangerous places on Earth, and they do it fully cognizant
that we share stronger partnerships with countries that share our
commitment to democratic values and human rights. They fight corruption
in Nigeria. They support the rule of law in Burma. They support
democratic institutions in Kyrgyzstan and Georgia, mindful from our own
experience that it takes a long time to get democracy right, and that it
rarely happens right away.
In the end, all of those efforts, all of that danger and risk that
they take, makes us more secure. And we do value democracy, just as
you’ve demonstrated here at UVA through the Presidential Precinct
program that’s training leaders in emerging democracies.
o Julie Judkins, representative of the Appalachian Trail, visited Tajikistan recently through a US program and spoke about the importance of community trails.
All I ask of "progressives" is a little...perspective. A little balance, at the very least!
I'm not like Joshua Foust. I don't justify drones in any way. I have grave misgivings about how moral it is to be battling by remote control as if you were in a video game like this. I'm not persuaded that the supposed good done from drones -- taking out various terrorist leaders who are known to attack US troops (and that's why I don't put "suspects" coyly around the term) -- outdoes the harm. The harm is turning the population against you if you have too much "collateral damage" -- or any, especially if it's children.I haven't been persuaded, like a lot of people, that the good achieved in curbing terrorism has been outweighed by the wrongs perpetrated against the innocents and the incitement of anger and hatred in the population.
But hey, let's get a little perspective on this, shall we? I don't even mean the perspective that might come from examining the actual terrorists killed and examining their actual bad deeds -- something that the press should do more of than it does.
I mean the perspective that comes from looking at other bad things in the region, and seeing what they're about, too, which, like Iraq, comes from admitting that the overwhelming majority of civilians are killed not by US troops or NATO troops but by the Taliban and its allies, i.e. terrorists.
Yesterday, I had to watch as all the liberal youth shared around with each other hundreds of thousands of times a picture taken with Instagram of a child's head in the sights of a sniper's gun. The child wasn't killed; it was just a picture of a sniper showing a child in his sights. This picture, whose provenance was said to be somewhere else online (which I couldn't find, using Google image search), was posted by a young IDF soldier. And so lefties like Jillian York @jilliancyork who has openly advocated a "one-state solution" that would involve obviously diluting the Israeli population deliberately and changing the nature of its society, were part of what spread this picture around (she has something like 26,000 followers around the world). Her comment? To put in scare quotes "the most humane army in the world". I don't know who says this or whether its an IDF motto, but I think we'd have to concede that by contrast to lots of other things in the world, including the US military, the IDF is more careful - it has gotten so through vast experience -- about trying to avoid the killing of civilians.
So today, we read all the stories of 90 Shi'a Pakistanis killed by Islamist terrorists who don't like their brand of Islam. That's just one day. Ninety people! People who were so angry that they refused to bury their dead in protest. Imagine, for Muslims whose religious ritual demands that they bury the dead quickly. Then, the pictures of Western news services of wailing people clinging to dead bodies with the headline "Letting Go," as if they need therapy, and a recognition of the Western-devised stages of grief, instead of continuing their outrage at the abnormality of losing civilians in this fashion, due to terrorism.
And none of those hundreds of thousands of Twitterers who could cluck in indignation at an Israeli soldier putting up an indecent and vicious picture of a sniper with a child in his sights could find it in their hearts to protest the mass murder of these 90 -- from one day. And there are incidents like that constantly, which is why the numbers of civilians killed by terrorists in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya are so much greater than by any Western troops involved. Not to mention the 60,000 or more killed in Syria, many children. Never one-tenth of the rage about *that*, sponsored by Russia, in contrast with the fueld outrage of the BDS movement over Israel.
So along comes the New York Times, which in its quest for readership and clicks and revenue is now putting up cartoons and interactive thingies to try to attract the Internet children upon whom their future relies. The NYT would never have published such a crude, propagandistic screed in its pages as journalism or even an op-ed piece, but the lure of interactivity and visuals let them put up Drew Carie's clever anti-drone propaganda.
Propaganda, because he crudely portrays a KGB agent as gleefully gloating over the US "becoming not like itself" -- which of course only distracts from the fact that among the clients for drones in the world is Vladimir Putin, a real KGB agent who is really in power, not just in a cartoon. And so on.
Propaganda, because not only does he create a one-sided if funny cartoon without any sense of context about the rest of the world, he actually has the nerve to cite Zamyatin's We -- a work of literature protesting the Soviet Union -- and make it somehow morally equivalent to the United States.
Propaganda -- because to the extent the US has become like Jeremy's Panopticon, it's more due to Google than the NSA.
Propaganda -- because in fact, as the cartoon shows, forces opposed the use of drones in Seattle and stopped them.
My response below, in the NYT comments.
***
By making his fictional character as a KGB
man gleeful that America has become like his own agency, ostensibly from
the Cold War, he handily distracts from the fact that the real dangers
from drones will not come from America, which is a liberal democratic
state under the rule of law with a free press, but from Russia, which
still has an actual KGB agent as its leader, or China or other
authoritarian states that jail cartoonists like Drew Christie instead of
publishing them in a leading newspaper. It creates hysterical
self-absorption by the "progressives" who fuel their fantasy that
America is the greatest evil in the world.
Putting the focus on
the government's surveillance also has the function of distracting from
Google and Facebook other Big IT companies that do far more surveillance
of us, with our avid and enthusiastic participation, than any
government drone, and with far less recourse to due process. Google is
making an unmanned car and will be able to further scrape data from your
every movement once you start using it, and nobody is caring about
that, only big scary Obama drones or Seattle drones. I'm all for
watching those, as they shouldn't be run by the CIA and innocent people
have been killed by them and their families cannot even be compensated
because they are in a secret program.
As usual, there is no
perspective on the left. Obama kills two US citizens deemed to be
terrorists; in Pakistan in just one day, 90 Muslims were killed by their
fellow Muslims.
At least, not right now, and probably not next week.
Oh, there might be another wave of pogroms as there was in Osh in Kyrgyzstan in June 2010 where hundreds of people were killed, mainly Uzbeks, and thousands displaced, but it might be in some other setting, not Kyrgyzstan's south, but who knows, maybe Tajikistan, as police shoot-outs of suspected terrorists have occurred regularly there since the civil war was over.
Or there might be another massacre of workers as there were in Zhanaozen, Kazakhstan in 2011, but probably not that again, and not there.
That's just it -- whenever unrest does break out, whether in Andijan in 2005 in Uzbekistan, where hundreds were massacred or in Osh as I mentioned in 2010, the authorities make sure it is tamped down very well after that, making numerous arrests, silencing or jailing journalists and bloggers and citizen reporters. So that's that, we get it.
Except, we don't. Because unrest does occur, sometimes with large numbers of people, and it surprises those who aren't prepared. Like the overthrow of Bakiyev in Kyrgyzstan in 2012, which shows signs of Russian engineering, but which couldn't have succeeded if there hadn't been underlying social disatisfaction with energy price hikes (induced by Russia) and other deeper and long-term economic and social malaise.
Nobody was ready when 20,000 or even 60,000 people came out on the main squares of Moscow and other Russian cities after Putin's orchestrated re-election, and nobody who got enthusiastic about the prospects then was ready for the severity of the crackdown that is now inevitably coming.
So yeah, unrest, but they tamp it down but then, they don't. So you have to be ready, and you have to have some theory about how society changes in these countries -- and that would not be "due to Internet penetration" or "development of the middle class" -- the mantras rehearsed by State Department officials and pundits worldwide. If only Internet saturation reaches X point that it reached in, oh, Iran or Azerbaijan (where unrest is reaching the thousands now in demonstration), why we might see those droids we're looking for.
But oh, remember This is What Can Happen To You, when Katy Pearce and Sarah Kendzior said about Azerbaijan that publicizing the news of the crackdown on Internet bloggers would chill the use of the Internet? Make people not want to go online or be very careful about their activities online? Remember how I was browbeaten to death for daring to suggest there was an Internet surge in Uzbekistan? But I countered this and said it was an Internet campaign that got the "donkey bloggers" released and I countered their theories of the efficacy of "networked authoritiarianism" (Rebeccah McKinnon's term) here and here (Is There an Arab Spring Bounce in Azerbaijan?) and then here for Central Asia. That is, I don't have ANY illusions that any Twitter revos are coming soon to these countries to utterly turn them over from head to foot, but I do ask: Why Can't We Say Azerbaijani Protest is Influenced by the Arab Spring and Social Media? Of course you can, and you don't need me to say this, you now have the released Emin Milli on the conference circuit to say it.
So last week, we were told at the OSCE Internet 2013 conference by Milli, the former political prisoner and blogger who just served 15 days in jail for his chronicling of demonstrations over the death of a soldier in the army, that there are one million sign-ups on Facebook. That's a lot of people for this small country. Socialbakers, the industry source on Facebook sign-ups, says there are more than a million now.
Says Socialbakers:
Our social networking statistics show that Facebook penetration in Azerbaijan
is 12.20% compared to the
country's population and 23.97% in relation
to number of Internet users. The total number of FB users in Azerbaijan
is reaching 1013080 and grew by more than
147280 in the last 6 months
Internet penetration was reported as 44% in 2010 by the ITU; then it was reported last year as 68% and is growing. So it's a lot, and people who say that Azeris are scared off the Internet by oppression were wrong, but people who say that such large percentages of Internet penetration will lead to revolution are also wrong, as the authorities are still very skillful in picking out people to coopt, intimidate or jail and torture as needed to keep the peace -- especially for those Western oil and gas companies coming in to develop the Shah Deniz II fields.
The number of people on the square in Azerbaijan isn't one million and isn't 28,000 but more like 2,000 or 200 sometimes, depending on the topic.
Now, Central Asia is much, much more "backward" or behind when it comes to the Internet, let alone Facebook, and has not had the kind of "Youtube protests" about local official corruption that then leads to street demonstrations -- although the phenomenon still can be found here and there even in these countries.
So you have to be ready, as these things can jump the synapse -- significant unrest/revolution/unheavals in Azerbaijan would obviously affect other neighbouring countries and so on.
Even so, we're been getting for years now articles that tell us not to worry, everything is boringly stable in Central Asia, and implying that anyone who crafts any other scenario is just hopelessly mired in Twitter mania and Jeff Jarvis-style over-romanticization of social media's power (that would not be me) or just not "getting it" about the Arab Spring, which didn't turn out to be "all that" in the end as we well know (and this article, Aftermath of a Revolution, in the International Herald Tribune really sums it up well).
This article was kind of written already on Kendzior's political home base, Registan.net, by Myles Smith: Central Asia: What Not to Look For, datelined January 2013.
Kendzior doesn't link to her colleague but should have, as he put down the markers for the prediction businesss, and I couldn't disagree, although as I said, you really need to have better theories of change and a more hopeful expectation about the people in these countries and their need to have a better life than they do under their current dictatorships.
I could answer Kendzior in detail but then, I already have in the past, and did on another article exactly a year ago by another specialist, Scott, Radnitz, Waiting for Spring, who told us "not to hold our breaths" and compare Central Asia to the Arab Spring -- and it's a good thing we didn't, as we'd be as blue as a UN peacekeeper's helmet now.
Even so, I'll just cut and paste below the fold what I put in the comments to Radnitz's peace again, because it still applies. And keep in mind that what the Arab Spring had was Al Jazeera (not WikiLeaks or Anonymous, silly, that's just self-serving hacker twaddle). Central Asia doesn't have that; it has Russian TV. So, you get what you get, even if you add Facebook.
Recent Comments