Very Interesting Article

[Javanmard]

Hi Everybody,

Here is something new I would like to discuss, check out this link:-

http://www.times.kg/2000/N51/opn-01.shtml

I would like to know your opinions on this article.

Tks.

[Lucky.]

Provacator,
Do not you have anything to do than finding this kinda articles and pasting them. Guys, do not think you that this are all the old policy of these so called western countries,"Divide and Conquer".Russia does not wanna lose central asia and is longing to get it back.Nea, we are not going back. We do not need any border "protectors" We have always stood for ourselves and still can do it. Whoever comes with peace we welcome but whoever comes with enmity we'll kick out. Unfortunately last century when we lost to Russians one of our biggest mistakes was that we could not unite and were fooled by russian foreighn policy.Guys let's do not repeat that mistake again, 'cause as you know it costed 150 years of slavery.

[SUN6500]

Everything boils down to the state of economy in Uzb. Earlier, Uzbekistan was giving a very promising start but with a time lapse reforms died down as well as convertibility of currency efforts which by large contributed (and contributing) to widening of corruption of state officials. So what needs to be done is I guess very obvious to everyone in this board -- economic reforms, currency convertibility orientation and free market without any preferential treatment of "some" business. Abolishing monopolies and paving ways for young upcoming businesses and bottom line is to create a middle class which is a backbone of any society. If Uzb. would have been a country with successfull economy I bet we wouldn't have witnessed those articles mentioned above. ( Hong Kong style economy where you can register a new business in about 2 hours without any delay). "Big Brother"s aside, Uzb. is capable of providing a protection to itself and no way Uzb. should allow any other state's (like Russia & Co) on its territory (duh, last thing we need is drunk soldiers on shooting rampage in our villages).
Anyway, IMHO, the article is focusing Kazakhstan as Russia primary partner and it becoming a "buffer zone" against political Islam (Northern Alliance used to be a buffer zone for Russia but I guess since its power is dwindling down it decided to skip Uzb because it wouldn't listen to Russia and back Kazakhstan instead).

[Javanmard]

Hi guys,

At last people with real opinions! :)

Lucky,
Pls. don't think I am trying to provoke anything by posting messages like this. I am sincerely trying to see what young educated Uzbeks think about "big brother Russia" that is all. I agree with but I think a closer co-operation between all Central Asia states will lead to more prosperity.

Sun6500,
I liked your message, but I think (in my opinion I mean) that the problem is a little more complicated than that. I think the problem of corruption should be tackled first. BTW, I am not talking about only Uzbekistan. I don't know enough about your country to even try to give my opinion on Uzbekistan alone but Central Asia in general.

I mean if tommorow all the countries implemented the Hong kong style changes, lack of education and knowhow in modern business practices, corruption and the terrible "privledged few" syndrome rampant in our countries would just lead to monopolies like what has happened in Russia with big robber barons eating all the countries resources.

The armed forces of Central Asian states are too dependant on Russia. Not only for equipment but also for training. They should look to other states in this sense. They should never invite foriegn powers in though. closer ties with China would also be a good idea in my opinion. This is what Iran has done to good effect. I mean why keep all your eggs in one basket??

[SUN6500]

For sure corruption should be tackled first. But the dilemma Uzb is facing is its economy being underdeveloped. The very core of this problem is a lack of investments into the republic which is a straight outcome of currency convertibility. Currency convertibility being in the hands of "few priveleged" compliments to a corruption that is so rampant in the country. If they'll let go so called bottleneck, it may very much cut on their "monthly indirect income." Economic reforms should start with freeing up the economy and currency convertibility followed by tackling corruption. Initially you want to cut the sources of possible "leeching" of state officials (currency convertibility being a primary source).
The problem with Russia was that monopolies existed from very beginning and mob was (and still is ) a primary factor in business. By Hong Kong style economy I meant the ease of setting up a business and a minimal opportunity for a "parasite" to leech off this business.
By no means state regulations should be totally given up but neccessary conditions should be created and a rule of law enforced.
For sure Uzb. Army is dependant on Russian arms which is being sold to both sides of fraction (To Rep.of Uzb and to Islamic Militants). The only country that would be geniunly better off in case of a total war would be Russia and RosVooruzhenie state concern). Therefore, Uzb. is in fact getting closer ties with China, as well as US in terms of arms imports (Recent mil.cooperation with Ukraine should also be mentioned).
Speaking of big barons, they already do exist in Uzb. but without too much of a pompous orchestra and fireworks as Russia likes to present itself. And as far as I know they've doing pretty good business with currency manipulation.

[Alex]

Should agree with SUN6500 that we need to cut those parasites from "monthly income" and the only way to do so is setting free exchange.

As for Russia in the region, I personally think that this article stinks!!!
Sooner or later they gona loose lots of their territories. I don't think they want Uzbekistan back, because they realize they would not manage it anyway. They can not manage tiny Chechnya, and if they loose Chechnya, who is gona be next... But the fact that they want some leverage in the region is indisputable.

PS Guys, did you notice that all this dirty play intensified with new russian president?

[Babysitter]

Dirty play? The politics has always been dirty. The rules of this play are dirty. It is more than 10 years that nothing changed for better (except Internet). All presidents of NIS are corrupted. But Kremlin was ruled by "Gogfarthers". Transplanted capitalistic models deteriorated the situation. Eltsin only to liked drink and he did not care about geopolitics and lost many markets and opprtunities. Read all Westsern and the USA newspapers: they all give you to understand that Russia has always been begging during these years. Eltsin chose easy way: Russia was obidient but beggar. West has always hated Russia for its big land. Even General Powell says about how the map is becoming "more colorful". The West don't care about the truth. The only thing they are interested split Russia into small pieces. Russia never is not so ambitious as the West is. All NIS countries now has "one main problem - democracy, independency". Democracy is a kind of wealth. It never can be earned in one day. Moreover, the more people are poor the less there is democracy. However, after 10 stupid years many politics (influenced by West) fasten cart in front of the horse. Democracy in a country, where the cotton is monoculture, the private business is under the pressure of taxes, high education is not affordable for rural people, is simply sound. You can say whatever you want but you have only one way: to gather cotton.
I think Putin really plays very well and he is doing right thing. I like people for whom the dignity is valued more than begged wealth.
And never be happy if Russia is going down: it is the biggest potential consumer of Central Asia. And about China. I see many of you overlook the role of China. China is always ready to sell you product but to buy...

Best wishes,
Babysitter
By the way don't think that I am Russian. I am from Central Asia. But I had time to work in Russia when our government forgot about rural places.

[Alex]

I never said that politics was not dirty, I am just saying it’s getting dirtier. Everyone knows that Putin is much more professional than his forerunner. But even he will not be able to change anything, the country is so big, and weak… This makes very hard for Kremlin to rule and necessitates Kremlin to give up some control over the provinces. Not to mention that West is dreaming of further disintegration of Russia and prepared to do anything to help that happen.
As for Eltsin’s begging for credits, Russia can afford them, I mean Russia had never paid back to West – this is fact, and West knew that they would not get their money back. And it was partially begging and partially threatening…. Iran thanks to Russia had obtained nuclear power; West (to be exact Washington) does not want Afganistan to become nuclear power.
Returning to the article, I almost fell from the chair after “…--one must not forget--just a little bit further afield, there is nuclear-capable and missile-armed, and somewhat politically unstable Pakistan with its first "Islamic bomb…" To me Russia is more politically unstable and “nuclear-capable and missile-armed” than Pakistan… and makes often recurring blunders than Pakistan.

Alex

[Freestyler]

I did not find anything provoking (or provocating) in the article.

What I found very interesting was the fact that the problems of the Central Asian states stem more from their internal misunderstandings rather then from some external factors. Previously I had some suspicions about that, but the article made it clear to me.
Javanmard - thanks for the article.


To <Lucky> and all those who are "allergic" to Russia and its policy:

Uzbekistan is not a powerful and independant (in its full term) country yet, neither economically, nor politically. So, making loud outcries like "Uzbekistan does not need a Big Brother" or "We do not need any border protectors" are only a populistic bluff.
We do depend on Russia (still at least) more then it does on us, both from the economic point and from the military.
And believe me, we can still gain much much more from mutual cooperation with Russia, understanding and respect.
(This is not to say of course that Russia should be able to dictate its rules and have a considerable impact on our national policiy).

[Lucky]

That's what I was saying freestyler. If you think we are still dependent, that's what you said (So, making loud outcries like "Uzbekistan does not need a Big Brother" or "We do not need any border protectors" are only a populistic bluff. We do depend on Russia (still at least) more then it does on us, both from the economic point and from the military),you are saying something which is against the external policy of our dear uzbekistan. You better watch your mouth. If you really like the russian influence, you better go and lick their feet yourself. Do not teach us to do it. We have always been Independent from Russia in full sense, the only thing was they forced us to be dependent to them. Think about what you said. I am for Cooperation with russia, espacially,economically. No more, no less. If we got money, Russia will sell any ways to us its best weapons. Take it easy.Cheers :)

[hehe]

Russia is loosing a war to Chechnya once again. So it's a very good chance for uzbek people to attack & conquere it. Someone has to bring a bit of culture to Russia!!! Afterwards, we can call it either "Big Brother" or "Small Brother"- whatever we like to.

take it easy,
hehe. :)

[SUN6500]

I don't think statements of "Uzbekistan does not need a Big Brother" are of necessary being a populistic bluff. For the very instance that Russia, although very weak does try now and then to become one to its own advantage. There are other countries that also try to become a "Big Brother" to Uzb. and thus try to influence on the region. One has to remember that Uzb is a landlocked country so to a degree it is easier to influence on country's economic or politic policy decision practices if it relies on so called "Big Brother's" territory to tresspass. Therefore, IMHO, Uzb. should diverse its economic as well as political paveways based on its current stand (i.e., "the enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine"). It is also important to note that most alliances are only temporary and based on what history has been proven so far, alliances don't last very long and country must maximize its goals given a short period of time of opportunity. Hence, Uzb. does not have permanent "Big Brothers" who will come to a rescue in a time of crisis (Russia goofed up with sniper rifle deliveries just after few months of Pres.Punin's visit of military cooperation between Uzb. and Russia while borders were being battered by terrorists). So Uzb. has no one but itself to rely on its protection. The old saying of "Ishonmagin Do'stingga, Somon Tiqar Po'stingga" is somehow true in this sense.

[Freestyler]

Hi, guys! You've gotta read this.
I've run across the brochure yesterday night and read it till the end - so engaging it was. The author, Bernard Lewis, takes a holistic approach offering a historical outlook to the political situation in the Middle East and Central Asia.
It should be equally interesing to all of you who are now participating in the discussions on the topics of religion, democracy and politics on this board.
What I liked most about this article is that it offers a virtually unbiased, objecitve analysis, taking a positive view rather then a normative (i.e., showing "what it is", rather then "what it should be")
I hope you will learn and clarify as many things for yourselves as I did from the brochure.
Despite it being intolerably long, I think you will be very much rewarded for your spent time.
I also want you to make analogues whenever you come across the topic of the Middle East" with Central Asia, because the situation seems quite to be repeating itself in our region, too.
(After all the discussions on the related topics on this board and after reading the brochure I felt as we were in some kind of scientific experiment while the author was the scientist conducting the experiment and making valuable notes) So here I am trying tpo share my modest experience

Below are only the introductory part of the brochure and some extracts from the body:

================================================== ===========================
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<The Future of the Middle East>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

According to a conventiosn commonly agreed among historians, the modern history of the Middle East begins at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when a French expeditionary force commanded by General Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and conquered Egypt and stayed there until it was forced to leave by a squadron of the Royal Navy commanded by Admiral Horatio Nelson. This was the first Western advance against the previously dominant power of Islam. But it was the first incursion from the West into the heartlands of the Islamic world.

This began a period during which ultimate power, and with it responsibility, for what happened in this region resided elsewhere; when the basic theme of international relations and of much else in the Middle East was shaped by the rivalries of Non-Middle Eastern states. These rivalries went through several successful phases – interference, intervention, penetration, domination and, in the final phase, reluctant departure. From time to time the actors in the drama changed and the script was modified, but the basic pattern remained the same. In the final act of this drama two external superpowers whose rivalry dominated the Middle East were the Soviet Union and the United States.

Future historians of the region may well agree on a new convention of periodization – that the era in the Middle Eastern history, which was opened by Napoleon and Nelson, was closed by Bush and Gorbachev. In the crisis of 1990-1 precipitated by Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, neither of the two superpowers played the imperial role which tradition and popular expectation assigned to it; the one because it could not, the other because it would not.
Moscow, once so great a force in the Middle Eastern affairs, could neither restrain nor rescue Saddam Hussein. Washington, having freed Kuwait from occupation and Saudi Arabia from the threat of invasion, had accomplished its war aims and unilaterally declared a cease fire, leaving Saddam’s regime intact and permitting him, with only minor impediments to crush his domestic opponents and in due course resume his policies.

As long as the Soviet Union existed, and as long as the Cold War was the main theme policy, American presence in the Middle East was part of a global strategy designed to cope with a global confrontation. With the ending of that confrontation such a strategy became unnecessary. No discernible strategy has yet emerged to replace it.

The break-up of the Soviet Union brought another important consequence – the emergence of eight new sovereign independent states in Transcaucasia and Central Asia. Two of these, Georgia and Armenia, are Christian; the rest Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, are predominantly Muslim. All these countries are part of the historic Middle East, linked to it by a thousand ties of culture, language and history. The Tajik language is a form of Persian; the other five Muslim states use languages related to Turkish. The Turks, Persian and Afghans show increasing interest in their newly liberated kinsfolk across the former Soviet frontier. They are also interested in those other Muslim peoples – Tatars, Bashkirs, Chechens, Circassians and others, who remain within the Russian federation. The same interest will in time extend to the Muslims of Chinese Central Asia.

The emergence of a world of Turkic states, like Arab world that emerged from the break-up of the British and French empires, will be increasingly important in the decades to come, and will have a significant effect on the Middle East to which they are now returning. But there are differences between the two cases. With a few exceptions - Algeria, Aden – British and French rule in the Arab world was indirect and of brief duration, The Transcaucasian and Central Asian territories were annexed by the tsars and retained by the Soviets under a thin veneer of federalism. Their experience of imperial rule was in many ways profoundly different from that of the Arabs. Their efforts to disentangle themselves from their former masters offer some similarities to the early stages of Arab independence. But they will be dealing with Moscow, not with London or Paris; with land-based power, not with a maritime and commercial ascendancy. The course and perhaps the outcome of their struggle for the true independence will surely reflect these differences.

For the time being however, Russia is out of the game and likely to remain so for some years to come; America is reluctant to return. This means that in many significant respects the situation reverts to what it was before. Outside powers have interests in the region, both strategic and economic; they may from time to time interfere in the Middle Eastern affairs, or even influence their course. But their role will no longer be one of domination or decision.

Many in the Middle East are having difficulty in adjusting themselves to the new situation created by the departure of the imperial powers. For the first time in almost 200 years, the rulers and peoples of the Middle East are having to accept the final responsibility for their own affairs, to make their own mistakes and to accept the consequences. This is difficult to internalise, even to perceive, after so long a period. For the entire lifetimes of those who formulate and conduct policy at the present time and their predecessors for many generations, vital decisions were made elsewhere, ultimate control lay elsewhere, and the principal task of statesmanship and diplomacy was as far as possible to avoid or reduce the dangers of this situation and to exploit such opportunities as it might from time to time offer. It is very difficult to forsake the habits not just of a lifetime but of a whole era of history. The difficulty is much greater when alien cultural, social and economic pre-eminence continues and even increases, despite the ending of alien political and military domination.

Military and to a growing extent political intervention by the West has indeed ended, but the impact of its science and culture, its technology, amenities and institutions remains and even increases. As in other parts of non-Western world, this impact has been and will be enormous.

<font color="0000BB">In these circumstances, it is natural that the Middle Easterners continue to assume – and proceed on the assumption – that the real responsibility and decision still lie elsewhere. In its crudest form, this belief leads to wild and strange conspiracy theories directed against those whom they regard as their enemies – Israel, and more generally the Jews, The United States, and more generally the West.</font> No theory is too absurd to be asserted or too preposterous to be widely and instantly believed. Even among more responsible statesmen and analysts, a similar belief in an alien power, albeit in a less crude form, often seems to guide both analysis and policy. Some even go so far as to invite outside intervention, presumably in the belief that only outside powers have the capacity to make and enforce decisions. A case in point is the constant appeal to the United States to involve itself in the Arab-Israel conflict, oddly coupled with the repeated accusation of “American Imperialism”.

This state of mind is likely to continue for some time, with appeals for support or even intervention to the United States, to Russia and even to the European Union. In time, no doubt, Middle Eastern governments and peoples will learn how to use this window of opportunity to the best advantage – that is, of course, if the window remains open long enough.

Those who accuse the West and more particularly the United States of “imperialist designs” on the Middle East are tilting against shadows from the past. There is however another charge with more substance – that of cultural penetration.

American culture differs from all its predecessors in two important respects. First, it is independent of political control and extends far beyond the areas of American political dominance or even influence, as for example in Islamic Iran or communist China. Second, it is in profound sense popular. Previous cultural expansions were limited to political and intellectual elites. American popular culture appeals to every element of the population and especially to the young. It also brings a special message to elements disempowered in the traditional order, notably women. Not surprisingly, therefore, it is seen as a mortal threat by both the defenders of tradition and the exponents of fundamentalist ideologies. How that threat is perceived is clear from Khomeini’s repeated characterisation of the United States as the “Great Satan”. No intelligence service is needed to interpret this epithet – just a copy of the Qur’an. The last verses, the best known along with the first, talk about Satan, describing him as “the insidious tempter who whispers in the heart of men”. Satan is neither a conqueror nor an exploiter. He is a seducer, most dangerous when he smiles.

The challenge of the Western culture has been a major theme in Middle Eastern debate for almost two centuries. American popular culture presents this challenge in its most recent and also its most pervasive form. Middle Eastern rulers, leaders and thinkers have offered and will no doubt continue to offer various responses to this challenge – imitate, adopt, adapt, absorb, or complain, denounce, reject.


FAITH OR FREEDOM

When General Bonaparte arrived in 1978 there were only two sovereign states in the Middle East: Turkey and Iran. Today, these are resuming their inescapable roles as the major powers of the region. The regimes in both, in their present form, were founded by revolution – the secular republic of Turkey and the Islamic republic of Iran. Both are inspired by revolutionary ideologies, which might be named after their founders as Kemalism and Khomeinism. And both ideologies, albeit in very different ways, are under attack at home.

Today, increasing numbers of Middle Easterners, disillusioned with the past ideals and – in many countries – alienated from their present rulers, are turning their thoughts of their loyalties to one or other of these two ideologies – liberal democracy and Islamic fundamentalism. Each offers e reasoned diagnosis of the ills of the region, and a prescription for its cure.

In this struggle, fundamentalism disposes of several advantages. It uses language that is similar and intelligible, appealing to the vast mass of the population in a Muslim country. At a time of economic deprivation and political oppression, many are ready to believe that these evils are a result of alien and infidel machinations, and that the remedy is a return to the original, authentic way of Islam. The fundamentalists also have an immense advantage over other opposition groups in that the mosques and their personnel provide them with a network for meeting and communication, which even the most tyrannical of governments cannot suppress or entirely control. Indeed, tyrannical regimes help their fundamentalist opponents by eliminating competing oppositions.

The exponents of democracy in contrast offer a programme and a language that are unfamiliar and, for many, unintelligible. They have further disadvantage that the name of democracy and those of the parties and parliaments through which it operates have been tarnished in the eyes of many Muslims by the corrupt and inept regimes that used these names in the recent past. In contrast, appeals in the name of God and the Prophet to cleanse society by restoring his holy law have a force and immediacy unattainable by democrats whose arguments and examples, indeed, whose vocabulary is recognisably alien. An Arabic loanword like "dimuqratiyya" lacks the resonance of "shari’a".
...
The strength of the democrats, and the corresponding weaknesses of the fundamentalist, is that the former have a programme of development and betterment, while the latter offer only a return to a mythologized past.
...The problem is that the weaknesses of the democrats are immediate and obvious; their strength are long-term, and therefore for many, obscure.
...
(To be continued)
P.S. All the bold, italics, underline formats are my job and might probably reflect my bias, if some of you will sens one.

Keep it ...