EU lifts sanctions on Uzbek government.

The sanctions were initially enacted in response to the Andijan massacre of 2005 (an incident in which troops shot at unarmed protesters - the number killed is disputed, but believed to be in the hundreds).  Since then, sanctions have been slowly eroded.

Germany, clearly incentivised by advancing its own economic interests, has led the fight for lifting sanctions.  EU nations can once again sell weapons to a corrupt regime lead by the brutal dictator Islam Karimov.

The claim that the Uzbek situation has progressed is specious:

There have been no improvements in human rights in Uzbekistan. There remains no freedom of speech, assembly, movement or religion. Thousands of political prisoners slave in the gulags, children are forced into the fields by soldiers to pick the cotton. Thousands still suffer hideous torture every year.

The value of the removal of sanctions is largely symbolic.  Uzbekistan has been obtaining weapons from non-EU sources. Although Russia is reported to be their main suppliers, the U.S. has played a major role in supporting the Karimov regime.  Because of its usefulness as a launch pad for offences in the Middle East, the U.S. has pumped money in to the hands of the Karimov government in order to buy favour with the regime.

Obama has been more than willing to ‘cut deals’ with Karimov. Obama recently agreed to triple the fee for its U.S. airbase in Uzbekistan. The most recent official U.S. rhetoric on Uzbekistan-U.S. Relations spoke of ‘partnership,’ ‘historic agreement,’ ‘a very positive development,’ and ‘our friends in the Uzbek government.’  There was even an attempt to sell Uzbekistan to U.S. corporations, ‘we will explore ways that we can expose more American companies to the opportunities here.’

Unsurprisingly, when it comes to questions regarding human rights, there was considerable obfuscation:

With respect to the human rights question, the United States and Uzbekistan intend to initiate a bilateral annual consultation in which we will discuss the full range of priorities on our bilateral agenda. I conveyed an invitation from the United States government to the government of Uzbekistan to send a high-level delegation at the time of their choosing to the United States to begin those consultations. As I said in my statement, I am confident that we will be able to make progress on the full range of priorities on our bilateral agenda.

As for why so many nations are willing to get into bed with one of the world's most egregious regimes, I will leave you with Craig Murray’s a concise appraisal

The politicians do it because the media and public do not seem to care, so they think they can get away with it. So far, they are right.

Truths in the face of misinformation (AKA cut the crap)

The British government supports torture.

The Conservative Party is not progressive.

Update

In relation to UK and U.S. complicity in torture, Newsnight interviews former Uzbek intelligence officer.

A few links about death, war, lies, homophobia, and the Media

Robert Fisk reflects on the time that he met Baha Mousa’s father as British operations in Iraq come to an end. ‘Robert Fisk: A historic day for Iraq – but not in the way the British want to believe’.  For Fisk’s first article about meeting Baha Mousa’s father - ‘Robert Fisk: A cry for justice from a good man who expected us to protect his son’.

A good post from Tabloid Watch on racism in the press and crime reporting - ‘How the tabloids cover crime’

Another good post from Tabloid Watch on homophobia in the Sun. ‘Sun's shower of homophobia’

3 good blogs on the evidence presented to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.

• Five Chinese Crackers – ‘Paul Dacre's evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’
  

• Rhetorically speaking…  - ‘paul dacre: the daily mail was never against the MMR vaccine’
  

• Roy Greenslade on Peter Hill’s 'mistakes' as he gave evident to the committee on behalf of the Daily Express - ‘Express editor's catalogue of 'mistakes' in evidence to MPs’ 
  

“In relation to Iraq I tried every other option [to invasion] there was”. It was Blair's classic lie, which passed unchallenged.

John Pilger on Blair’s current role – ‘Fake faith and epic crimes’.

In a separate indictment, former Judge of the New Zealand Supreme Court E.W. Thomas wrote: “My pre-disposition was to believe that Mr. Blair was deluded, but sincere in his belief. After considerable reading and much reflection, however, my final conclusion is that Mr. Blair deliberately ands repeatedly misled Cabinet, the British Labour Party and the people in a number of respects. It is not possible to hold that he was simply deluded but sincere: a victim of his own self-deception. His deception was deliberate.” […]

Protected by the fake sinecure of Middle East Envoy for the Quartet (the US, EU, UN and Russia), Blair operates largely from a small fortress in the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem, where he is an apologist for the US in the Middle East and Israel, a difficult task following the bloodbath in Gaza. […]

On 8 February, Andrew Rawnsley, the Observer’s former leading Blair fan, declared that “this shameful period will not be so smoothly and simply buried”. He demanded, “Did Blair never ask what was going on?” This is an excellent question made relevant with a slight word change: “Did the Andrew Rawnsleys never ask what was going on?” In 2001, Rawnsley alerted his readers to Iraq’s “contribution to international terrorism” and Saddam Hussein’s “frightening appetite to possess weapons of mass destruction”. Both assertions were false and echoed official Anglo-American propaganda. In 2003, when the destruction of Iraq was launched, Rawnsley described it as a “point of principle” for Blair who, he later wrote, was “fated to be right”. He lamented, “Yes, too many people died in the war. Too many people always die in war. War is nasty and brutish, but at least this conflict was mercifully short.” In the subsequent six years at least a million people have been killed. According to the Red Cross, Iraq is now a country of widows and orphans. Yes, war is nasty and brutish, but never for the Blairs and the Rawnsleys. […]

Ginny Dougary of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Times. Dougary recently accompanied Blair on what she described as his “James Bondish-ish Gulfstream” where she was privy to his “bionic energy levels”. She wrote, “I ask him the childlike question: does he want to save the world?” Blair replied, well, more or less, aw shucks, yes. The murderous assault on Gaza, which was under way during the interview, was mentioned in passing. “That is war, I’m afraid,” said Blair, “and war is horrible”. No counter came that Gaza was not a war but a massacre by any measure.