Germany retains alliance with Uzbeks despite massacre

Sand

Germany, one of the the dominant powers of the EU has been granted the dubious honour of being the only NATO power allowed to retain bases in Uzbekistan, specifically the Termez base, which is apparently Germanys only base in Central Asia and thus seems to be worth the smell that comes with association with the Uzbek leadership - Indeed Germany has thanked the Uzbeks for letting them stay. The German airforce apparently uses the base to supply NATO efforts in Afghanistan.

Uzbekistan, in case youve forgotten, threw out other Western powers like the U.S. over criticism it received when its army massacred protestors back in May. Germany incidentially trains officers in the army that carried out the massacre as part of the NATO partnership for peace effort, and apparently (according to the BBC story) swung a deal to get an Uzbek official [EDIT] Actually it was Zakirjon Almatov, the Uzbek Interior Minister, who was number one on a list of the 12 people cited by the EU as directly responsible for the massacre in May. [/EDIT] barred from entering the EU in to receive medical treatment, hence the returned back scratching.

Seeing the intrinsic values of the EU threatened in such a way, is Germany in serious risk of a backlash from both its partners in the EU and Europeans in general? Mass protests in front of the German embassy? Doubt it.

Sand

Yeah, thought so

mike65

LOL! Damnit Sand you know the rules, USA Bad - Old Europe Good...

Its like me and Zimbabwe, when I start a thread on the subject it coughs, splutters and dies like an old Austin in January. Some subjects/combinations are just not sexy.

Mike.

Sponge Bob

Sand wrote:

Uzbekistan, in case youve forgotten, threw out other Western powers like the U.S. over criticism it received when its army massacred protestors back in May.

The yanks have a better base next door in Kirghizstan Sand and they also have a well known concentration camp (oops USAF Air Base ) in Bagram.

A third airbase in the region is simply greedy and unnecessary innit ??

The Germans do not have an airbase in Kirghizstan do they ?

Uzbekistan was a ****hole befor ethe yanks got their base there in 2001 but hey , Uzbekistan was an important ally of the US back then

You have such a short narrow selective memory Sand, where is my Rummy and Saddam photo album again .

Sand

Knew it wouldnt take long for the predictable to roll in. Thats grand Sponge Bob, but arent you concerned that our fellow EU member nation is cosying up to a regime that massacres its population? The US is all the way across the Atlantic, Germany is nearly our neighbour and we are directly associated through the EU. What they do reflects on us.

Dont you think their actions fly in the face of our post-realpolitick, world of international laws, human rights and fluffy kittens European Union? Or are you too distracted by the whipping boy of the Western world to care? Middle Eastern dictatorship demonise Israel and the US to distract people from their own misdemeanors. European governments dont even have to try.

Hobbes

Considering the EU said they will seriously slap any country helping the US with its private tourture camps I wonder if Germany will get slapped for this?

Btw even though the US were thrown out the country the head of Uzbek is still very close friends with the Bush Administration.

Sponge Bob

Sand wrote:

Knew it wouldnt take long for the predictable to roll in. Thats grand Sponge Bob, but arent you concerned that our fellow EU member nation is cosying up to a regime that massacres its population? The US is all the way across the Atlantic, Germany is nearly our neighbour and we are directly associated through the EU. What they do reflects on us.

The Germans initially obtained access thru a NATO ally in 2001. That NATO ally was the USA when it formed some freedom and democracy and muffin coalition of the happy and well fed thing to hammer the Taliban with B52 bombers . Uzbekistan, a tinpot ****hole of the highest order, was as obnoxious a regime before the yanks went in and during the US occupation of said airbase as it is now. Nothing has changed for the better in Uzbekistan because of the US occupation.

Not one worthy US value, of which there are many, even trickled out the gate of said airbase during the US occupation.

Therefore why did the yanks go there in the first place???? would it be because Al Quaida was not welcome in Uzbekistan and for no reason of any altruistic worth ??????

Dont you think their actions fly in the face of our post-realpolitick, world of international laws, human rights and fluffy kittens European Union?

No, its an airbase so their actions land in the face of <whatever is he on about> all that .

Or are you too distracted by the whipping boy of the Western world to care? Middle Eastern dictatorship demonise Israel and the US to distract people from their own misdemeanors. European governments dont even have to try.

I have recommended you an effective laxative by PM dude, I really would not want you to retain all of that with turkey pud and cream incoming shortly .

Happy Christmas Sand , take the drugs this week willya

bonkey

Sand wrote:

but arent you concerned that our fellow EU member nation is cosying up to a regime that massacres its population?

Are they cosying up to them?

How, exactly, is refusing to allow entry to one of 12 people cited for a massacre cozying up?

Hi...we'll help you by...umm....refusing to help the people who caused this massacre?

Sounds to me like the Germans didn't hold back on their criticism, but managed not to get kicked out for it. I don't see that as cozying up. I#d see refusing to offer criticism in the first place as cozying. Did the Germans refuse to criticize the massacre, Sand?

The US is all the way across the Atlantic, Germany is nearly our neighbour and we are directly associated through the EU. What they do reflects on us.

Y'huh. But correct me if I'm wrong....the Germans didn't refuse to condemn the killings, or suggest that the country is full of tree-hugging hippies, fluffy bunny rabbits, smiles and happiness, did they?

Dont you think their actions fly in the face of our post-realpolitick, world of international laws, human rights and fluffy kittens European Union?

No. I think that there are three seperate issues here. One is whether or not there is a case for a base in the region at all. The ongoing actions in Afghanistan suggests there may be.

Next is whether or not it is suitable or acceptable, once the need is stablished, to have the base where it is. I'm no expert on the region, nor on military needs, so I can't really answer that.

Third is whether or not the (continued) existence of the base is preventing the nations who own the base from continuing to push for progress wrt. human-rights in the host nation. From what I can see, Germany hasn't stopped joining in the criticism, nor has it tried to gloss over such issues.

Its a bit like the tip-toe with China, really. They're not exactly a bed of roses, but having nothing to do with them is not the solution. Putting pressure on them to improve, whilst offering them benefits in parallel....that seems to work.

From what I recall, the criticism of the US in the region was not that it had a base, but that it seemed to be literally singing the praise of the goodness of the boiling-people-we-don't-like regime.

I don't see any such praise-singing from the Germans in what you posted...although you seem to count banning their interior minister from the EU as some sort of endorsement of the actions, which I can't fathom. How is refusing help to those responsible construable as support?

So other than those who feel we with our moral high ground (whoever that we is) should have nothing whatsoever to do with any nation who does anything unacceptable, I don't really see the problem.


Germany criticises, and maintanis its base. The US doesn't criticize, and maintains its base....or it does criticise and gets booted out. Sounds to me lik e its the 'stan's who are applying their standards unequally here, not us.

Maybe you should go have a word with them

jc

Hobbes

Need to dispel a myth here. The US were not kicked out for thier critisim against Uzbek. They were kicked out because Congress refused to keep giving money to the country after the massacre got such public attention in the US.

Is Germany giving money to the country?

mike65

Anyone know why Germany has a base in such a far-flug spot?

Mike.

Nuttzz

Hobbes wrote:

Is Germany giving money to the country?

From the interfax link above

interfax wrote:

including the arms trade between the two
countries.

much better than money, if your the uzbek president that is

tj-music.com

Now it is the "ugly Germans" again,eh? They can have their base whereever they like for what I care.

Germany is NOT the mental narzistic country it supposedly was 60 odd years ago.

They got slapped a lot alongside the French when they clearly said NO to any military involvement regarding Irak.

Anyway, I guess once GERMANY is mentioned, it is just an easy target for criticism. :mad:

Sand

Btw even though the US were thrown out the country the head of Uzbek is still very close friends with the Bush Administration.

Great, open your own thread - this is about Germany and the EUs continued direct links to the Uzbek regime that massacred protestors only 6 months ago.

Therefore why did the yanks go there in the first place???? would it be because Al Quaida was not welcome in Uzbekistan and for no reason of any altruistic worth ??????

Great, open your own thread - this is about Germany and the EUs continued direct links to the Uzbek regime that massacred protestors only 6 months ago.

No, its an airbase so their actions land in the face of <whatever is he on about> all that .

So you feel the values of the EU, tempered by the atrocities of WW2, are compatible with the Uzbeks? Or are you saying that despite the PR, the EU and its members - our elected representitives - are just as down and dirty when in its in their interests as anyone else?

How, exactly, is refusing to allow entry to one of 12 people cited for a massacre cozying up?

I probably didnt state it clearly, but Im sure the BBC article did, they didnt stop him entering - they *let him in* to get medical attention and then let him go. Hence cozying...

Y'huh. But correct me if I'm wrong....the Germans didn't refuse to condemn the killings, or suggest that the country is full of tree-hugging hippies, fluffy bunny rabbits, smiles and happiness, did they?

Actions>Words? Whatever they said, they kept the Uzbeks happy behind the scenes.

Its a bit like the tip-toe with China, really. They're not exactly a bed of roses, but having nothing to do with them is not the solution. Putting pressure on them to improve, whilst offering them benefits in parallel....that seems to work.

Whilst I admit that the EU is trying to sell arms to China, over and beyond the protests of the US, the China case is usually argued in terms of trade opening up borders/culture/aiding economic development and thus leading to democratic growth. Ive yet to see a similar argument put forward on the grounds of airbases, training armies, selling weapons and personal assistance to a dictatorial regime.

Need to dispel a myth here. The US were not kicked out for thier critisim against Uzbek. They were kicked out because Congress refused to keep giving money to the country after the massacre got such public attention in the US.

Actions>Words?

Anyway, I guess once GERMANY is mentioned, it is just an easy target for criticism.

Get over it. Germany's foreign policy is not immune to criticism because they might get embarrassed about what their grandparents were up to.

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Great, open your own thread - this is about Germany and the EUs continued direct links to the Uzbek regime that massacred protestors only 6 months ago.

It was on topic.

Actions>Words?

As I mentioned the US didn't loose the base until they stopped sending money to Uzbek. They were quite happy to leave thier base there too and nothing happend to it even when Bush was on TV making the announcement that what they did was wrong.

There was only action because of public outrage and only Congress had the balls to do something about it. The US didn't leave Uzbek they were kicked out.

As for Germany, I was not aware of what you posted. Thanks for that and I agree with you that Germany should get slapped for this. Is it common knowledge in Germany of what is going on? Have you complained to any EU official?

bonkey

Sand wrote:

I probably didnt state it clearly, but Im sure the BBC article did, they didnt stop him entering - they *let him in* to get medical attention and then let him go. Hence cozying...

Ah. I see.

Well, the "letting him go" bit I can understand. They have no warrant for his arrest.

I take the point about waiving the ban though. I agree. Its terrible behaviour....allowing someone to receive medical aid. Shocking behaviour. Its like allowing criminals out of prison to receive medical aid. Let them die, I say

Being somewhat less flippant...I'd have to know more details about the particular case before taking a meaningful stance on hte rights or wrongs of the "temporary unbanning".

Having said all that, medical grounds have all-too-often been the basis for nations not enforcing their bans on one person or another. Its a bit of a lose-lose. If they let them in, they get criticised for not sticking to their ban for one reason or another. If they refuse, they get criticised for being cold-hearted bast@rds who put political agendas over medical needs.

Actions>Words?

I give up. Are they?

Whatever they said, they kept the Uzbeks happy behind the scenes.

SO you're suggesting that they got up to something scurrulous behind the scenes that you've no evidence of other than that they didn't get kicked out?

And you think we should do what? Decide that something must have been done, and criticise them for actions unknown?

Whilst I admit that the EU is trying to sell arms to China, over and beyond the protests of the US, the China case is usually argued in terms of trade opening up borders/culture/aiding economic development and thus leading to democratic growth. Ive yet to see a similar argument put forward on the grounds of airbases, training armies, selling weapons and personal assistance to a dictatorial regime.

First you get on good terms with them. Then you start applying pressure. It doesn't work the other way around.

As for the airbases, training armies, selling weapons and personal assistance to a dictatorial regime....those comments are so general that I find it hard to address them. You can do good or harm by training an army, depending on how you train it, and what the nature of that training is. Training "interrogation units", for example, or other such euphemistically-named groups....that would generally be inarguably a bad thing. Training the regular field-troops to be more professional....hard to see where the problem there is, but I'm open to correction.

Same for "personal assistance" and all the other half-described events you refer to. As I said...I don't have the detail. I can see how a temporary lifting of a ban to allow medical aid could be politically the right move. I can also see how it would be nothing but a cynical currying of favour with blatant disregard to any sort of moral standards.

If you have a criticism, maybe you could go into the details of what is so bad, other than a "they haven't refused to have anything to do with them" line, which I'd find somewhat disengenuous no matter who it were applied to.

Germany's foreign policy is not immune to criticism because they might get embarrassed about what their grandparents were up to.

On this I agree undoubtedly.

But again...the devil is in the detail. Its not immune to criticism....but that doesn't mean its automatically deserving of it either.

jc

The Corinthian

mike65 wrote:

Anyone know why Germany has a base in such a far-flug spot?

Much the same reasons the Americans have bases in similar paces I’d imagine.

Personally I have never had any illusions as to the moral high ground of either the US or Old Europe. Germany and France primarily will act in their own self-interest, however the reality is that part of that self-interest (at least on an economic level) overlaps upon those of the EU. So while I am neither a German nor an American, I am a European. I actually have a, albeit limited, say in the direction of the EU, and by extension Germany. I have no such say in the direction of the USA.

The Germans may well be bastards, but they’re our bastards.

So, outside of pointing out the lack of moral high ground that will sometimes be evident from the Old European side of the debate, I don’t understand the ultimate logic of the Europhobes here, such as Sand or mike65 who will post anti-European trolls upon occasion. Perhaps it’s an Anglophilia thing - some bizarre fantasy that the US will recreate the British Empire by proxy. Maybe it’s simply that old Harold Macmillan’s stratagem of becoming “wise Greeks” has been taken so much to heart that they don’t realize they’ve become “New Puerto Ricans”.

Maybe they think they’re American. I don’t know. Watch enough TV and anyone could be forgiven for thinking that.

Sponge Bob

Sand wrote:

Great, open your own thread - this is about Germany and the EUs continued direct links to the Uzbek regime that massacred protestors only 6 months ago.

I said you to that the reason the Germans were EVER there is because they followed the US in.

You then skipped rapidly away from the discussion as to how NATO countries EVER got into the former Soviet base in Uzbekistan when you realised that we already knew that it was old freedom and democracy himself , Bush, who led the US in there in the first place.

The reasons why the US should NEVER have gone into or countenanced going into a tinpot dictatorial undemocratic ****hole like Uzbekistan are as great if not greater than any reason why their NATO ally Germany may still be there. Yet you refuse to discuss this policy aberration committed by the US from 2001-2005 (inclusive) in order to attack Germany instead simply because the Germans would not follow Bush into Iraq 2 years later . Had the Germans been stupid enough to join the fluffy bunny rabbit remote control live on tv willing attack Iraq gig in 2003 you would not open your mouth Sand would you

Its not Germanys fault that US soldiers are dying in Iraq, they told you not to go near the place in 2003 .

People in Glasshouses should not Throw Sand ....to coin a apt cliché

Sand

I take the point about waiving the ban though. I agree. Its terrible behaviour....allowing someone to receive medical aid. Shocking behaviour. Its like allowing criminals out of prison to receive medical aid. Let them die, I say

Far as I see it they should have extended the same medical care they do to all crinimals. Either let him in for medical treatment, give it to him, and then hand him over to this much trumpeted international court, or dont let him in for treatment. Letting him in and letting him go is pissing all over both the victims of the atrocity he carried out and the stance the EU took.

I give up. Are they?

Its a matter of perspective.

And you think we should do what? Decide that something must have been done, and criticise them for actions unknown?

Well we know what was done - the assistance to the number one suspect in the massacre, the training of the army, and Germanys closer links with Russia which is a good friend of the Uzbeks. The Germans certainly wanted to retain the base, they thanked the Uzbeks, so we cant pretend the Germans were indifferent to how the regime percieved them.

First you get on good terms with them. Then you start applying pressure. It doesn't work the other way around.

It seems to be in the Uzbek case, as in theyre the ones apply pressure. Germany is in no position to apply pressure, and never will be. Its in Uzbekistan at the pleasure of the Uzbek regime, and if they dare to try place pressure on the regime theyll be booted out quite quickly I think.

But again...the devil is in the detail. Its not immune to criticism....but that doesn't mean its automatically deserving of it either.

At risk of inducing Godwins, where have I based my case against Germanys activities in Uzbekistan on the actions of 60 years ago? The poster I was responding to was, Im guessing, an oversensitive German who appeared to feel any criticism of Germany on human rights grounds was a subtle dig about WW2. Its not.

So, outside of pointing out the lack of moral high ground that will sometimes be evident from the Old European side of the debate, I don’t understand the ultimate logic of the Europhobes here, such as Sand or mike65 who will post anti-European trolls upon occasion. Perhaps it’s an Anglophilia thing - some bizarre fantasy that the US will recreate the British Empire by proxy. Maybe it’s simply that old Harold Macmillan’s stratagem of becoming “wise Greeks” has been taken so much to heart that they don’t realize they’ve become “New Puerto Ricans”.

Maybe they think they’re American. I don’t know. Watch enough TV and anyone could be forgiven for thinking that.

Actually I summed up the entire logic behind posting this in a reply to Sponge Bob.

Dont you think their actions fly in the face of our post-realpolitick, world of international laws, human rights and fluffy kittens European Union? Or are you too distracted by the whipping boy of the Western world to care? Middle Eastern dictatorship demonise Israel and the US to distract people from their own misdemeanors. European governments dont even have to try.

The board is consumed with topics relating to the US and its actions. I wouldnt say its *the* most common topic, the Provos are strong rivals, but its at least in the top 2 or 3. All the attention is focused on the US, whilst our own neighbours and EU partners can safely get up to acts as corrupt and immoral and receive at best extremely muted criticism. Like I said, middle eastern dictatorships have to work at distracting their populations - people seem to do it pro bono here.

I posted this, and I was certain Id receive one of two general responses - lack of interest/criticism because it wasnt about the US or an effort to turn it into a US centered thread. Ive got both, with some honourable exceptions. Like you said Corinthian, "Maybe they think they’re American. I don’t know. Watch enough TV and anyone could be forgiven for thinking that". Certainly people have far more interest in US politics than that of the EU and our partners...

I said you to that the reason the Germans were EVER there is because they followed the US in.

Great, open your own thread - this is about Germany and the EUs continued direct links to the Uzbek regime that massacred protestors only 6 months ago.

Its not Germanys fault that US soldiers are dying in Iraq, they told you not to go near the place in 2003 .

Despite Corinthians accusations ( Not the first time hes tried to assign me a nationality based on my views, love it or leave it right Cori?) Im not american, Ive never even visited the country, hence the Germans told me nothing about going near Iraq in 2003.

People in Glasshouses should not Throw Sand ....to coin a apt cliché

That statement works on *so many* levels. Looks like its not only Americans who dont get irony.

There was only action because of public outrage and only Congress had the balls to do something about it. The US didn't leave Uzbek they were kicked out.

Youre talking about the Congress like it isnt the elected legislature of the US - the Presidency is only one of 3 branches of the US government. It was designed that way.

Sponge Bob

Sand wrote:

That statement works on *so many* levels. Looks like its not only Americans who dont get irony.

Oh , You were being ironic all along were you ???

That amount of sustained irony about the now German former US Airbase in Uzbekistan is racist trolling IMO and should be treated as such .

Sand

Oh , You were being ironic all along were you ???

That amount of sustained irony about the now German former US Airbase in Uzbekistan is racist trolling IMO and should be treated as such .

No I was criticising the Germanys decision to retain close links with the regime in Uzbekistan despite a massacre only 6 months old that dominated the worlds headlines - gratefully too. I just also knew what sort of reponse Id receive and have received. But even I couldnt predict people throwing stones whilst standing in glass houses, warning other people not to throw strones whilst standing in glass houses.

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

Actually I summed up the entire logic behind posting this in a reply to Sponge Bob.

Well, not really... or at least if your reply to Sponge Bob contains the entire logic behind starting this thread, then you’re not really doing anything that differs greatly from what I already suggested.

I can understand a reaction to the almost Orwellian “USA Bad, EU Good!” mantra we will find in threads here, but in fairness I don’t believe for a second that this is ultimately your motivation. You have been consistently and equally guilty of a similar and opposite bias and this thread appears to be little more than a continuation of that.

As I said, I know and have stated why I would favour the Germans over the US in this discussion and am unashamedly self-interested about it. It’s why you’re the reverse that puzzles me.

Unless you’re American, of course - that would naturally make sense.

Sponge Bob

Sand wrote:

No I was criticising the Germanys decision to retain close links with the regime in Uzbekistan despite a massacre only 6 months old that dominated the worlds headlines - gratefully too. I just also knew what sort of reponse Id receive and have received.

Do you equally condemn the USA for entering into an agreement with an oppressive antidemocratic corrupt tinpot Uzbeki dictatorship to acquire an airbase on its territory, that agreement effective from 2001 to 2005 , and in the full foreknowledge of the kind of regime it was dealing with when it did so .

mike65

The Corinthian wrote:

Much the same reasons the Americans have bases in similar paces I’d imagine.

Indeed, I mention it simply becuase until Kosovo Germany had been very careful about 'scareing the horses' so to speak by not stationing active military personel or infrastucture outside its own borders.

The Corinthian wrote:

So, outside of pointing out the lack of moral high ground that will sometimes be evident from the Old European side of the debate, I don’t understand the ultimate logic of the Europhobes here, such as Sand or mike65 who will post anti-European trolls upon occasion. Perhaps it’s an Anglophilia thing - some bizarre fantasy that the US will recreate the British Empire by proxy. Maybe it’s simply that old Harold Macmillan’s stratagem of becoming “wise Greeks” has been taken so much to heart that they don’t realize they’ve become “New Puerto Ricans”.

Maybe they think they’re American. I don’t know. Watch enough TV and anyone could be forgiven for thinking that.

Whoa there! I am not or have I ever been anti-European, I swear fealty to the EU Comission and Council of Ministers. Okay not quite, but I'm more glad the EU exisits than not. That does'nt mean I'm blind to its manifold failings.
I'm not an Amercian heaven forfend, I'm Englander so while your theory is wrong you were going in the right direction!

Mike.

Sponge Bob

Sponge Bob wrote:

I have recommended you an effective laxative by PM dude, I really would not want you to retain all of that with turkey pud and cream incoming shortly .

Happy Christmas Sand , take the drugs this week willya

Take an extended Xmas break for that-2 weeks
Oh and read the charter before you come back

Calina

mike65 wrote:

Indeed, I mention it simply becuase until Kosovo Germany had been very careful about 'scareing the horses' so to speak by not stationing active military personel or infrastucture outside its own borders.

I believe that there was legislation in place in Germany preventing the deployment of its soldiers outside its borders until sometime around then...

mike65

Thats right, I recall the hullaballoo in Germany when the matter came up for debate.

Mike.

Sand

I can understand a reaction to the almost Orwellian “USA Bad, EU Good!” mantra we will find in threads here, but in fairness I don’t believe for a second that this is ultimately your motivation. You have been consistently and equally guilty of a similar and opposite bias and this thread appears to be little more than a continuation of that.

Maybe I just dont subscribe to the Orwellian mantra you note. If such an Orwellian mantra existed, then surely as a matter of default its adherents would assign anyone who wasnt clearly on their side, as being on the other? By the way, werent you assigning me a nationality based on my views only a few posts ago?

As I said, I know and have stated why I would favour the Germans over the US in this discussion and am unashamedly self-interested about it. It’s why you’re the reverse that puzzles me.

Im not a rabid nationalist, and even if I was I wouldnt transfer that nationalist blindness to EU partners. The sort of rampant self interested nationalism, where as Orwell put it "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them" has never gone away of course, but at its peak it underpinned Europes darkest periods of history.

As for your puzzlement, Im not cheering for one country or the other. Im in favour of liberal democracy, and Ill support any administration, government or faction that appears (imo) to be advacing or protecting it. This position, shockingly, means that I can support either the US, the EU or both as and when the opportunity and occasion arises. As North America, Europe and other outposts across the world are liberal democracies I do not view them as natural enemies or rivals as you seem to do so. I for example, dont see the either/or you think is inherent in your post above. Its not a choice between supporting the US or Germany, its a choice between whether you think helping the author of a massacre only 6 months old advances or hinders liberal democracy?

Im not naive enough to assume that most of these decisions will come down to anything more than: how much of *this* can we tolerate to achieve *that*? China is an example of what can go right with engagement with a distasteful regime. But I dont see the same happening in Uzbekistan when Germany is actively assisting the regime to avoid travel bans that it, as a major EU leader, is supposed to uphold. Where was their loyalty to you as an EU citizen then Corinthian? Maybe you might argue, theres some realpolitick payoff - the same logic has been used before. But what exactly would it be? Germanys not in a Cold War with anyone. Is it?

Unless you’re American, of course - that would naturally make sense.

Love it or leave it...

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

Maybe I just dont subscribe to the Orwellian mantra you note. If such an Orwellian mantra existed, then surely as a matter of default its adherents would assign anyone who wasnt clearly on their side, as being on the other?

I never said you did. I don’t ether. However you appear to subscribe to that mantra’s opposite, not because of this thread by because of many others in addition to this thread. I thought my accusation was quite clear in that.

By the way, werent you assigning me a nationality based on my views only a few posts ago?

No, I wasn’t. I simply said if you were American your stance would seem more understandable.

Im not a rabid nationalist, and even if I was I wouldnt transfer that nationalist blindness to EU partners. The sort of rampant self interested nationalism, where as Orwell put it "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them" has never gone away of course, but at its peak it underpinned Europes darkest periods of history.

That’s sweet, but I don’t see its relevance to what I said.

As for your puzzlement, Im not cheering for one country or the other.

Well, actually that’s where I disagree. You began this thread with an almost grim glee at the German lack of moral high ground. Were this the only time you’ve done this I might let it pass, but it’s not. Pretty squarely makes you partisan, I’m afraid.

Im in favour of liberal democracy, and Ill support any administration, government or faction that appears (imo) to be advacing or protecting it. This position, shockingly, means that I can support either the US, the EU or both as and when the opportunity and occasion arises.

Except I don’t think you ever have supported the EU. If I’m wrong I apologise, but otherwise...

Im not naive enough to assume that most of these decisions will come down to anything more than: how much of *this* can we tolerate to achieve *that*? China is an example of what can go right with engagement with a distasteful regime. But I dont see the same happening in Uzbekistan when Germany is actively assisting the regime to avoid travel bans that it, as a major EU leader, is supposed to uphold. Where was their loyalty to you as an EU citizen then Corinthian? Maybe you might argue, theres some realpolitick payoff - the same logic has been used before. But what exactly would it be? Germanys not in a Cold War with anyone. Is it?

That’s a nice rant, but as I already said, I see little difference in the real politik practiced by either the US or the EU. However the latter (imperfectly) enfranchises me. Pretty open and shut case on my loyalties, TBH.

Love it or leave it...

Please explain.

Sponge Bob

Sponge Bob wrote:

Do you equally condemn the USA for entering into an agreement with an oppressive antidemocratic corrupt tinpot Uzbeki dictatorship to acquire an airbase on its territory, that agreement effective from 2001 to 2005 , and in the full foreknowledge of the kind of regime it was dealing with when it did so .

as in can you manage this condemnation this year !