The Informationist

The Informationist Defense of Neocons Continues in Uzbekistan

Matt Yglesias posted a glib observation about the incoherence of U.S. Policy in Uzbekistan. I saw an opportunity to resume my hopeless quest for a rapproachement between liberal internationalists and neocons in a setting less charged than Iraq.

It’s hard to disagree. Though I think that Uzbekistan--a country around whom political rhetoric is not yet toxic--provides a good example of a point I’ve made elsewhere: Democratic liberal internationalists have a lot more in common with Republican neocons than either might like to admit.

In the current Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol writes:

[Uzbekistan’s Karimov] was quickly supported by his fellow strongmen Vladimir Putin and Hu Jintao. But U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who values our military base in Uzbekistan, has apparently (so far) blocked attempts by others in the U.S. government to insist on an investigation of the massacre, or to withhold U.S. aid.

This piece follows up the magazine’s editorial from a few weeks ago, where Kristol and Steven Schwartz urged the Bush administration to act in Uzbekistan:

President Bush should lead the international pressure on Karimov to allow journalists, legitimate relief workers, and trustworthy investigators to travel to Andijon and render a verdict on the events there. That verdict will likely be harsh for Karimov, and it should have consequences for U.S. aid to and support for the regime. Washington cannot turn a blind eye to massacres in a country where U.S. troops are based and that receives U.S. assistance. Here as elsewhere, the principle of linkage between a regime’s behavior and relations with the United States must be reestablished. And if not in Uzbekistan, where we have so much leverage, how seriously will others take our promises and our warnings?

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the real debate is not over doctrine, but rather over trust and competence. Republicans (of all stripes) tend to trust this administration and to believe in its basic competence. Democrats (of all stripes) do not. That difference in orientation can lead to significant differences over policies, as well as to disputes about the meaning of various actions, but it is not a debate about doctrine or ideology.

Opposition to tyranny, recognition of the difference between good and evil, and belief in individual autonomy and dignity are American values, not Republican or Democratic values. We would make the country, the world, (and even the Democratic Party) a better place if we recognized that Bush often does speak for us--and then pushed him to act for us as well.

I’m sure that the neocons appreciate my labors on their behalf. I seem to have chosen a strange windmill at which to tilt.

Got a reply from Petey reminding me that the rift I decry is primarily the Republicans fault. My response?

I agree. Politics these days is about scoring points, and the cleaner the lines between the players the easier it is to tell who won. The Republican leadership, in both the WH and on the Hill, has taken every opportunity to divide the American public. Unfortunately, many Democrats have responded in kind.

The press--and many Democrats--derided Clinton’s “triangulation” as political opportunism. But what if it wasn’t? What if it actually embodies the principle that it’s better to get 70% of the American public behind a policy that is less-than-everything-you-might-want than to get 51% behind a policy that is everything-you-might-want?

. . . but I’m afraid that I’ve strayed far from Uzbekistan

Posted by Bruce Abramson from on 06/18 at 10:48 AM in Foreign Affairs and the World beyond Our Borders