Politically Motivated Orders on Creation a Phobia on Uzbekistan as an Evidence of the Systemic Crisis of British Foreign Policy

Today, when you read or listen to profound or contrary analyses of the experts and journalists about the situation in Central Asia, and especially in Uzbekistan, you can catch yourself on an idea that all this already once has happened. Everything has taken place before and it regularly repeats oneself from the end of 1980th are beginnings of 1990th.
Meanwhile the following hypotheses and tactics have been renewed for several times:
- the same alarmist analytical predictions and columnist’s hysteria about inevitable "apocalypse" in Central Asia if the West does not interfere with a situation or " pro-western reformers" are not able to win in the region;
- the same one-sided and clumsy attempts to give out a desirable as a truth via the "political commercial" of the completely failed “pro-reformatory and pro-democratic" neighboring country as "an exemplary" for Uzbekistan;
- periodic attempts to afflict with hostility the fraternal people of the Central Asia, actively to spread interethnic discord, to create “invented” interethnic problems and phobias among the population of neighboring countries concerning Uzbeks, though in each neighboring country Uzbeks make up from 5 to 25 % of the population;
- impudent interferences to impose unceremoniously "the external managing director" for Uzbekistan not only in the economic issues, but also almost in all other spheres of life in the country: from public health services to TV and radio broadcasting and up to social policies.
And many other deceptions from the slanderous campaign against Uzbekistan repeatedly appeared in the last year. It is noteworthy that "the sources" of the politically motivated orders and the "black PR" campaigns perpetrators represent the same institutions.
These experts and journalists for more than 15 years have been continuing to draw the same conclusions and have filled with articles hundreds of thick magazines and large-format newspapers and published bulk of multipage abstruse reports and books.
However, the question is why those apocalyptic prognoses stated by these "experts" at the beginning of 1990th has not come true even 12 or 15 years later and notwithstanding this fact they continue to repeat them even not on the second or third circle but in 50 or 100 times. What are the experts, whose predictions do not become true even for ten percent!?
These are by no means the rhetorical questions and give the ground to believe that direct agents of the anti-uzbek PR-campaigns are either complete dilettantes in the area or the absolute provocateurs, and most likely both, one and another taken together.
In order to be the trustworthy it is necessary to sight some particularities. The analysis of more than 700 publications on Uzbekistan of the London based Institute for War and Peace Reporting (the IWPR) for last six years has not virtually revealed any positive response, on one issues of development of the country.
«Stringers» of the IWPR, apparently, have so liked to get into «uzbekphobia», or the leadership of the Institute so strongly hates the Uzbek people that they have not highlighted any changes in Uzbekistan even in neutral or impartial tone.
It won't be right to claim that the IWPR elucidates events in other countries of Central Asia without biases. However, it is necessary to acknowledge that at least one thirds of articles on Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, each second article on Kazakhstan and two thirds of reports about Kyrgyzstan neutrally ascertain the facts and describe events, or give the positive description of the one or another aspect of public policy and public life in these countries.
One may ask: “What are the reasons fort such pathological hatred of the London editors and their local «stringers» towards Uzbeks!?” Or the staff of a department on hiring the personnel of Institute employs reporters only on the basis of a degree of their hatred to the people of our country!?
On the one hand, such impudence, at least, causes objections and fastidiousness about those people who have chosen on the professional base to fabricate slanders about the millions of people. From other side, it becomes clear that foes slandering so furiously inadvertently are proving all our actions have been done correctly. The fidelity of the axiom proves: the more praise you get from the outside observers, the advantage from your actions is somebody's interest, and vice versa.
It was the same about Russia of “the Yeltsin’s epoch” in the 1990s, when it was praised for the withdrawal of more than hundred thousand Army from Europe to the plain steppe, it was praised for reformation (consider decay) Army, it was praised for transformation (consider collapse) of economy and etc. As a result, as president Vladimir Putin has stated, "comrade Wolf knows whom to eat, it eats without listening and it’s clearly not going to listen to anyone."
Besides, the IWPR for last few years very harshly criticizes activity of the Russian government, showing a "special interest" to the situation in the Northern Caucasus, first of all in the Chechen Republic. Probably, this "special interest” embodies "unselfish aspiration" of the gentlemen from the banks of Thames "to promote normalization of a situation in the region and to the settlement of conflicts" at the same extent as the well-known group of military sappers of the British "humanitarian organization". The Federal Security Service investigation has found out that instead of the clearing the territory from mines, these above-mentioned specialists-mine-layers from «humanitarian» organization were engaged in instructing of the Chechen insurgents on the diversionary-blasting. An activity of this "commissary" was terminated soon after its disclosure.
However, the ethical aspect is important. Therefore, here are some questions: Why does the IWPR so hate Uzbeks!? Whether is it a result of "the editorial" policy of this institution or its owners – the grant issuers!? Or is the uzbekphobia of the IWPR connected with an employment at the Institute of a contingent of the unbalanced and hostilely inclined to uzbeks "stingers" from among citizens of Uzbekistan?
If the answer to the last question is positive, why the head of the Central Asian branch of IWPR Mr. John MacLeod, in the past the employee of the BBC and of a number of the British governmental agencies, tolerates such one-sided approach at selection of the employees!?
In general and as a whole, it is interesting to observe the world’s events, and especially when it concerns questions of «prevention of war and saving a peace», in what the IWPR should ostensibly be engaged. The idiocy of a number of publications and imaginations, born in the sick heads of Uzbekistan’s stingers does not have limits. In order somehow to justify an official web-site of London based Institute, since August of this year this “Internet rubbish heap” of the local marginals has again begun to function. It still will be possible to read and learn much about the psychological deviations of "patients" from coast of Thames.
It has been proved by a decree of nature that the moral degradation not only some of individuals, but also the whole states and civilizations begins with "devastation" in the minds. It is very important that infectious metastases the fervent uzbekphobia, inherent to the IWPR, must not infect minds in government agencies in the United Kingdom.
It would be wrong to think that a delirium of sick marginals is a truth of the last instance. Taking into account all the aspects of the matters under the discussion it is necessary to find the thoroughly and well-considered approach on the basis of mutual account of interests of the people and the states, but not a small group of foolish “journalistic-analytical fraternity”.