There are few states remaining that have remained free from the international oligarchy. One of these is Uzbekistan, whose rejection of involvement with international financial institutions and maintenance of a sovereign currency has, despite economic problems such as hyper-inflation, enabled this state to stay secure from recent world financial turbulence. Since Uzbekistan remains a relatively sovereign nation, it is problematic to the globalist oligarchy.
A recent report from the authoritative Oilprice.com newsletter, in featuring investment opportunities in Uzbekistan, states of the former Soviet bloc states that the foreign investors who flooded in were mostly drawn to the hydrocarbon assets and focused on the Caspian, in particular Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. During this time, Uzbekistan only attracted about $10 billion in investment. However the Uzbek Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Economic Relations now states that the aim is to attract over $50 billion of foreign investment in the next five years in over 500 projects.
Oilprice.com states that Uzbekistan is rich in resources, including proven natural gas reserves of 1.58 trillion cubic meters, 594 million barrels of proven oil reserves, and 190 oil and natural gas fields; lead, zinc, silver, molybdenum and coal; the world’s seventh largest amount of gold reserves; over 2,700 mineral deposits, and a variety of 100 different natural resources.
The Oilprice report states that the reason for the lack of foreign investment until now has been that the country is landlocked, that its currency is “not yet fully convertible,” and that the state “has also pursued a cautious policy with international fiscal institutions…” The Oilprice.com writers add, “but the wisdom of such an approach has been vindicated during the global recession, which largely bypassed Uzbekistan.” Oilprice.com frankly states that when Texas Governor George Bush lobbied with the Uzbek ambassador to get Enron into the country, despite a promising start, Enron was rebuffed, and “Uzbekistan wisely chose not to ingest the Enron Kool-aid.” However other corporations have successfully entered Uzbekistan based on joint ventures with the State. These include: General Motors, Boeing, Coca Cola, Baker Hughes, Honeywell, Nukem, and Hewlett Packard. Oilprice further states that according to Wikileaks, the US Embassy has advised that corporations wanting to invest in Uzbekistan will be assisted to aggressively negotiate in regard to state policy.
The Usual Suspects
While it is obviously to be hoped that Uzbekistan maintains its sovereign course and does not succumb to the glitter of foreign investment, the rulers of Uzbekistan seem canny enough to realize that they are playing a dangerous game, and that when supping with the Devil one must have a very long spoon.
Despite the aim of securing foreign investment, this is unlikely to satisfy the globalists, who see in Uzbekistan a source of enormous, largely untapped wealth. A “velvet revolution” will continue to be on the globalist agenda. Uzbekistan remains high on the globalist hit-list, as does Turkmenistan and Belarus. The Turkmenistan Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights states that “Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan [rank] among the world’s least democratic states. In the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2010, published at the end of the year, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan were fourth and third lowest-placed, respectively…” However, Tajigul Begmedova, head of the Turkmen Helsinki Fund for Human Rights based in Bulgaria, sees hope in the new generation of halfwits emerging, who are too stupid to see beyond the dream of their homeland joining the “new world order” of Hollywood, MTV, Twitter, and consumerism. They, like their counterparts in other former Soviet bloc states, and the current round in North Africa, are the basis for a “velvet revolution.” Begmedova states:
There’s a generation growing up who’ve been educated abroad and experienced freedom. They have a different way of thinking; they cannot accept it when the government behaves in an illogical fashion and they discuss it with their peers.
The report is stated as being “produced as part of IWPR’s News Briefing Central Asia output, funded by the National Endowment for Democracy.”
Despite the supposed superiority of outlook of the young over their parents and grandparents, as enthusiastically observed by Ms Begmedova, it’s merely the old story of kids rebelling against their elders, in the cock sure belief that they are right and the oldsters are wrong, and they remain oblivious to being nothing more than a new generation of lickspittles for plutocracy.
The Institute for War and Peace Reporting focuses specifically on Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The Institute reports on the recent formation of forces that are clearly designed to agitate for a “velvet revolution” in Uzbekistan, stating of the People’s Movement of Uzbekistan, that the movement announced
[p]lans to stage acts of civil disobedience inside Uzbekistan to press their demand for regime change…. Muhammad Solih, whose Erk movement has joined the People’s Movement, was elected to head the group. He told NBCentralAsia that active resistance was bound to be effective. “Events in the Arab world prove this,” he added.
Of particular interest,
Kamoliddin Rabbimov, an Uzbek political analyst living in France, said the People’s Movement differed from early efforts to coordinate opposition in that it had both supporters and financial backing in Europe and North America. He believes intensive publicity campaigns could spark popular protests inside Uzbekistan.
Who these financial backers from European and America are is not difficult to surmise; given that, for a start, IWPR states that it is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy. Like Iran, the secret to Uzbekistan’s survival as a sovereign state might include the awareness of its rulers as to the machinations of the global oligarchy. Hence the Soros projects were closed down in Uzbekistan in 2004, the Government having ordered registration of all international organizations in 2003.
Clampdown on Capitalist Subversion
The Uzbek move against subversive organizations, and the shutting down of Soros, provoked the protests of the US Government, which supports Soros initiatives around the world. Further, this year the Government closed down Human Rights Watch, with Freedom House stating, “HRW is widely regarded as an international standard bearer in providing objective, well-documented research on human rights cases in countries around the world.” Contrary to the description of Human Rights Watch by Freedom Housed, HRW is linked to Soros, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), etc., and service as the means by which a targeted state is demonized through the world news media as a prelude for what often ends in military attack. Freedom House further remarks that it was among the NGOs kicked out by the Uzbeks in 2005.
Hopefully, if the Uzbek government secures foreign investment without having its sovereignty undermined, it will have the revenue to providing funding and other support for dissidents in the USA, and campaign assistance for someone such as Ron Paul. After all, it will only be assisting with the democratic process. It might also take an example from the USA’s democratic heritage and form a State “Committee on Un-Uzbek Activities” to question subversives linked to Soros et al.
The banned organization, Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation–Uzbekistan, had been formed in 1996 and had spent “over $22 million in aid” in Uzbekistan. Putting its oily fingers into education was a major activity. The banning has not stopped Soros however. Actions against the Uzbek state continue via the Central Eurasia Project. Soros works here as elsewhere closely with the International Crisis Group, one of the networks of interlocking globalist organizations promoting “the world velvet revolution.”
Millions for “Regime Change”
The National Endowment for Democracy is a major financier of activities directed against the Uzbek regime. This follows the same pattern that myself and others have documented in regard to “regime change” presently taking place in North Africa. NED funding in regard to Uzbekistan seems to start from 2002. Over the past few years, NED funding has included:
2009: “Human Rights” (legal issues) $58,970
2008: $169,874 “Human Rights” (legal issues)
2007: $97,150 for “human rights activists.” $26,500 to establish an Uzbek newspaper.
2006: “In FY 2006, the Endowment made grants for democracy-building programs in Uzbekistan totalling $201,960.” Of particular interest was:
Center for International Private Enterprise
To assist a group of Tashkent-based economic consultants with data analysis and preparation of a series of individual sector-specific background papers and policy analyses that will be used by an economic advisory council to develop a menu of economic reform policy options. The advisory council will use the data from the papers to identify and prioritize the economic challenges likely to be faced by a post-Karimov reform government, and engage opposition leaders in a discussion of the socio-economic ramifications of alternative reform policies.
Note that this was to formulate privatization policies once a globalist-approved Government has been installed.
2005: $92,830 for oppositionist media, including “publication of an independent quarterly journal, a twice-weekly electronic newsletter, and public opinion polls.” $112,298, for “Human Rights,” which comprises legal matters. $34,350 “NGO Development,” which means “promoting networking” oppositionist groups.
The Uzbek rulers, like those in Iran, know the score in regard to Soros et al. Hopefully, in seeking out foreign investment, their resolve to keep their nation sovereign will remain firm. With the “democratisation” of the economy (i.e. “privatisation”), inevitably comes the excrescence of decadent American anti-culture, and the inexorable decline of nationhood.
Uzbek, Russian & US Relations
Uzbekistan is of significant importance to the globalists for reasons additional to its natural resources. The earlier US position was replaced in 2005 when Russia and Uzbekistan signed a mutual defense pact. That year the USA was told to shut down its base, the Uzbek leadership being mindful of the US/globalist orchestrated “color revolutions” in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, as indicated also by the closure of sundry NGOs.
While NED and Soros are predictably major factors in the agitation against Uzbekistan the range of globalist NGOs are again present. The pattern is the same as that played out against Eastern Europe, North Africa, Myanmar, and other states in Central Asia. Again we have Freedom House (one of the outfits banned by Uzbekistan), and the International Republican Institute…; the same rat-pack that has brought “freedom” around the world in the service of predatory capital.
 “Investors, Look East?,” Oilprice.com, Issue #94, June 3, 2011.
 “Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan Score Poorly in Democracy Ranking,” Institute for War and Peace Reporting, http://iwpr.net/report-news/turkmenistan-uzbekistan-score-poorly-democracy-ranking
 Ibid. For the National Endowment for Democracy and how it relates to globalization and the US Government see: K R Bolton, “Tunisian Revolt: another Soros/NED Jack-Up?,” Foreign Policy Journal, January 18, 2011, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/01/18/Tunisian-revolt-another-sorosned-jack-up
 For the way by which youthful “rebels” have historically been manipulated by plutocracy, see: K R Bolton, “The Dialectics of Youth Rebellion,” Veritas, Vol. 2: 2, May 2011, St Clements University, pp. 8-15. Also: “Twitterers of the World Revolution: The Digital New-New Left,” Foreign Policy Journal, Feb. 28, 2011, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/28/twitterers-of-the-world-revolution-the-digital-new-new-left/
 IWPR, “News Briefing Central Asia,” http://iwpr.net/programme/news-briefing-central-asia
 IWPR, “New Uzbek Opposition Force Formed,” http://iwpr.net/report-news/new-uzbek-opposition-force-formed
 “The decision of the government of Uzbekistan to close the Soros Foundation was political,” Ferghana News Information Agency, April 26, 2004, http://enews.fergananews.com/article.php?id=387
 “Uzbek Government Forces Closure of Local Soros Foundation, Uzbek Staff of International Organizations Branded Traitors,” Open Society Foundations, April 18, 2004, http://www.soros.org/newsroom/news/uzbekistan_20040418
 Freedom House Press Release, “Freedom House Condemns Closure of Human Rights Watch in Uzbekistan,” March 16, 2011, http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=1362
 For examples of how the supposedly neutral Human Rights Watch is associated with the CFR and Soros, see: K R Bolton, “Myanmar Targeted by Globalists,” Foreign Policy Journal, June 1, 2011, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/06/01/myanmar-targeted-by-globalists
 Freedom House Press Release, “Freedom House Condemns Closure of Human Rights Watch in Uzbekistan,” op. cit.
 For the interlocking nature of these organizations, see: K R Bolton, “The Globalist Web of Subversion,” Foreign Policy Journal, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/07/the-globalist-web-of-subversion/ Also: New Dawn, Special Issue 16pp. 17-30.
Tony Cartalucci, “Naming Names: Your Real Government,” Land Destroyer http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com or New Dawn, op. cit., pp. 35-38.
 K R Bolton, “Globalist Web of Subversion, “ op. cit.
 National Endowment for Democracy, “Uzbekistan,” http://www.ned.org/search_results.html?cx=008846551274917761505%3A1i0zdvf5gsi&cof=FORID%3A11&q=uzbekistan&sa.x=8&sa.y=12#950
 National Endowment for Democracy, “Uzbekistan,” http://www.ned.org/publications/annual-reports/2006-annual-report/eurasia/description-of-2006-grants/uzbekistan
 K R Bolton, “Iran: The Next Domino?,” Foreign Policy Journal, Feb. 22, 2011 https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/22/iran-the-next-domino
Iran had the foresight to ban dozens of subversive globalist organizations.
 “Declaration on Strategic Partnership and Cooperation Framework” signed between the USA and Uzbekistan in 2002.
 Jyotsna Bakshi, “Russia and Uzbekistan Sign ‘Treaty of Alliance Relations’,” Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, December 27, 2011, http://www.idsa.in/idsastrategiccomments/RussiaandUzbekistanSignTreatyofAllianceRelations_jbakshi_271205
 “The ‘colour’ revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine and in Kyrgyzstan between 2003 and 2005 alarmed the Uzbek authorities about the dangers of a close embrace with the West. They suspected that Western NGOs were seeking to prepare opposition forces as an alternative to the present government and consequently began to place restrictions on the activities of West-aided NGOs.” Jyotsna Bakshi, ibid.
Interestingly, happenings in Uzbekistan demonstrate simmering Sino-Russian rivalry, despite the façade of being aligned. After the US was obliged to shut its base in Uzbekistan, the Chinese made enquiries to take over the base. Russia moved quickly to pre-empt the Chinese. Jyotsna Bakshi, ibid.
 Freedom House, “Uzbekistan,” http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?search=Uzbekistan&submit_search=Search&page=287
 IRI, Uzbekistan, http://www.iri.org/search/node/uzbekistan