By James Liddell
Opinion Columnist

Since the attacks of September 11, the United States has been at war with terrorism. This “war on terror” has united not just Americans, but the entire world against the global enemy of terrorism. Countries such as Uzbekistan and Pakistan have been crucial allies on the war on terror. These nations, along with many others, recognize the importance of crushing Islamic militancy in order to eradicate terrorism. However, our nation’s preoccupation with eliminating Islamic militancy has diverted our attention and assets away from other still meaningful issues, such as human rights and genocide.

Last week, over forty people were killed in attacks by Islamic militants in the Central Asian republic of Uzbekistan. The line from Washington was that these attacks “strengthen our resolve” to work with global allies like Uzbekistan to defeat terrorists. Uzbekistan has been a key ally in the war on terror, allowing us to set up a military base on their soil (conveniently adjacent to Afghanistan) following the attacks on 9/11. Although Uzbekistan is helping us combat terrorism, our ostensibly unconditional support for them needs to be reevaluated.

Not only is democracy completely stifled in Uzbekistan, but it has one of the world’s worst records of torture. It has long been acknowledged, even by the U.S., that Uzbekistan routinely practices “systematic torture.” Their President has even had political opponents boiled alive. But the U.S. and its allies in the war on terror don’t like to worry about these things. When the British Ambassador wrote a report last year documenting such human rights atrocities, he was asked to leave his post for “unknown” reasons.

Uzbekistan currently has an estimated 7,000 political prisoners. This number is expected to sky-rocket after recent terrorist attacks. Uzbekistan has promised to crack down heavily on local Muslim militants. It only makes sense that the first group they have targeted for the attacks is Hizb ut-Tahrir, a Muslim group with no prior record of violence.
The U.S. is scheduled to evaluate Uzbekistan later this month to see if it qualifies for U.S. assistance. When Defense Secretary Rumsfeld makes statements that America and Uzbekistan are “growing stronger every month,” it is hard to believe that much pressure will be put on Uzbekistan to change its evil ways. Boy, we sure pick our allies well.

Next we turn to Pakistan. Pakistan has been America’s most crucial ally in the war on terror. Its airspace and “logistical support” have been indispensable in our invasion of Afghanistan. Its cooperation has also been essential to our manhunt for remaining Al Qaeda operatives who are hiding in the mountains along the Afghan/Pakistani boarder.

Due to our close and “irreplaceable” relationship with Pakistan, our country has remained relatively quiet when the news broke that a leading Pakistani had spent the 1990s running a racket on nuclear technology exporting to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. Although this decision is defendable (the man responsible, Mr. Kahn, was a national hero for bringing his country “the bomb,” so it would have been political suicide for President Musharraf not to pardon him) other policies have not been defendable.

On February 25, the U.S. Department of State released its annual human-rights asserting that human rights in Pakistan “remained poor.” The very next day, Secretary of State Colin Powell was in front of Congress justify ing the department’s $5.7 billion budget allocation for countries “that have joined us in the war against terrorism.” Pakistan led the list with $700 million.

Translation: you help us out, and we’ll stay out of your business and throw a couple million in on the side.

While fighting the “war on terror,” the U.S. has made it clear that gathering up anyone suspected of being an Islamic militant is its first priority. Other issues, such as human rights, aren’t as important. After all, they just get in the way and distract us.

This ethos is becoming stunningly clear with our reaction to the current genocide that is taking place along the Sudan/Chad border. It is estimated that 1,000 people are dying each week in Sudan, as Arab militias are eradicating specific tribes of people, partially for being darker skinned than the Arab leaders. There are mass killings, mass raping, and torture. Sudan’s civil war of more than 20 years—a war that has left Sudan with 600,000 refugees who live in some of the worst conditions imaginable—has hit a new low.

Ironically, all this is occurring on the ten-year anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda. At the same time that we are asking ourselves how we could have let the genocide in Rwanda happen, we are letting another African genocide take place.

Although President Bush has raised the issue in a private telephone conversation with Sudan’s president, no one, including the U.N. Security Council has “forcefully” spoken up about it.

If the U.S. had a vested interest in Sudan, or was not completely preoccupied with the war on terror, then we certainly would be taking serious steps to end this conflict. And just for the record, fruitless diplomatic reviling of Sudan’s oppressive Arab militant government does not qualify.

Actions speak louder than words, and the Bush administration’s actions have made it clear that it is OK that torture and genocide are occurring all over the world, as long as it is not Saddam who is doing it.


Respond to this article