31 October 2001

How To Think About International Politics - 3

I rarely link to articles appearing on MSNBC. One reason is that many (most?) of the articles are written by the same TV journalists who (mis)report the news in the first place, and if I want that level of analysis, I can view MSNBC on the tube. I don't go to the web (or to print publications -- opinion, news, industry, or other) to see what are essentially reports created to be "viewed" on television in 60 seconds or less, and I don't find that to be a terribly informative use of the web. When studying international politics, this is even more true.

This MSNBC article on Uzbekistan is a case in point. It's written by Chip Reid, a familiar face to MSNBC viewers and apparently NBC's correspondent in Uzbekistan. Overall, Reid's piece is exactly what one would expect from TV news: a quick and dirty report on a country most Americans know nothing about. At that level, it's fine.

Unfortunately, Reid tries to go beyond that introductory level to a more analytical level (though perhaps he doesn't even realize it, a lack of awareness that seems to bedevil journalists):

There is a radical, once-violent Muslim movement here — the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, or IMU — but Karimov has put most of them in jail. That means U.S. military planners don’t have to worry about the potential for an overthrow of the government here, something they do worry about in Pakistan.

Even as simple reportage, this paragraph fails. The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (UMI) remains a violent radical Muslim movement -- not just the "once-violent" movement suggested by Reid. Karimov has tried over the past few years to quell the movement, unsuccessfully; contrary to Reid's claims, most of the activists are NOT in jail (though some are). And the paragraph fails to note that the UMI is known to have ties with Osama bin Laden (something Dick Cheney alluded to in this interview on NBC, followed by State Department blacklisting of the group as a terrorist organization), and that its leader, charismatic Juma Namangani, is reported by numerous sources to have been named as one of Osama bin Laden's deputies.

As analysis, the paragraph is dreadful. While it's true that the threat the UMI poses to regime stability in Uzbekistan is not as high as the threat posed to regime stability by Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan, Reid intimates that it is no threat at all. That's just wrong! One of the chief reasons that President Karimov has welcomed U.S. troops is that he has had such difficulty controlling the UMI despite the fact that he maintains a repressive police state (note paragraph 7 here, and ask yourself why the US would bomb what is, in Reid's view, a non-violent, non-threatening, essentially impotent Islamic group? Answer -- it IS a threatening group). Another reason is that President Karimov did not want to turn to Russia for help with this problem (Russia would love to maintain influence over its former Central Eurasia republics even now), although prior to 11 September he was indeed beginning to look that way (not his preference, but a choice forced upon him by the rise of the HARDLY impotent UMI).

Readers here are somewhat familiar with the circumstance of Uzbekistan, as I've written about it before. I don't expect that level of analysis from Chip Reid, although it is true that the average layperson who relies upon MSNBC (television or web) for "analysis" on Uzbekistan is somewhat misinformed on this issue. Rather, I cite his reporting simply to illustrate one of the difficulties of analyzing international politics, namely that of information -- what information to trust, why, and in what context? And from that, what does it mean? It further illustrates that any pundit can opine about international politics. Actually getting things right takes a little more work (not to mention method).

[Posted @ 04:59 PM CST]