Sting’s Uzbek Dictator Problem

Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/44376038@N00/1036875658">isuperwang</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


I’m not going to pretend pop-music fame is easy, but here’s a handy maxim for future crooners to keep in mind: Don’t do private concerts for tyrannical rulers who reportedly boil people alive. Just sayin’.

You might think it goes without saying. But then, you might not be Sting. The former Police frontman, whose given name is the less-barbed Gordon Matthew Sumner, has been taking it on the nose for performing last October at an “arts festival” put on by the daughter of Uzbekistan’s strongarm dictator, Islam Karimov. (He’s the former communist party boss who, since 1991, keeps getting “elected” as his political opponents or their bodies keep disappearing.) Tickets to the gig in Tashkent, Uzbekistan’s capital, ran from $1,000 to $2,000—or 45 times the average Uzbek’s monthly income. And having been there, I’d say that might just be an overestimate of the average Uzbek’s earning power.

If you want to know just how bad Karimov’s regime is, ask Britain’s former ambassador to the nation, Craig Murray. Or the thousands of children Uzbekistan puts to work in its cotton fields to pick and bale its “white gold.” Or Condoleezza Rice, who tore asunder a tenuous US-Uzbek anti-terror alliance after Karimov’s men gunned down as many as 1,000 demonstrators in the streets of Andijon five years ago. (When the Bush-era State Department calls your country “an authoritarian state with limited civil rights” and castigates you for allegedly torturing and killing terror suspects “by immersion in boiling water,” brother, you’re on the wrong side of a moral argument.)

The daughter in question, Gulnara Karimova, is a piece of work in her own right. Just ask her ex-husband, an Afghan-American from New Jersey, whose two children—and Coca-Cola bottling-plant fortune—were allegedly spirited off to Uzbekistan when the couple separated. She also reportedly runs several state-owned business concerns cobbled together from Western assets seized in Uzbekistan, which are occasionally backed by shadowy military contractors who might be involved in assassinations. She’s also listed as one of the 10 richest women in Switzerland. Let that sink in for a minute. Rich. By SWITZERLAND standards.

For his part, Sting (who has been a big past booster of Amnesty International) said in a statement that he has no illusions about the Karimov regime. “The concert was organized by the president’s daughter and I believe sponsored by UNICEF,” he said. “I am well aware of the Uzbek president’s appalling reputation in the field of human rights as well as the environment. I made the decision to play there in spite of that. I have come to believe that cultural boycotts are not only pointless gestures, they are counter-productive, where proscribed states are further robbed of the open commerce of ideas and art and as a result become even more closed, paranoid and insular.” (UNICEF said today it was “surprised” by the notion it had cosponsored any events in Uzbekistan.)

Sting’s “artists as democratizers” explanation, though, didn’t stop Harper’s writer Ken Silverstein—whose coverage of Uzbekistan and greater Central Asia rocks the casbah—from calling the singer a “celebrity asshole.”

Perhaps the scariest part is, this isn’t an isolated incident. Famed rockers regularly play private gigs for people you might not enjoy meeting on a street corner. There was the New Year’s gig Beyonce played for Moammar Qaddafi’s son, Hannibal; Jimmy Buffett’s appearance at the infamous orgy of decadence thrown by ex-Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski for his wife; and the intimate affairs Michael Jackson and Celine Dion put on for the Sultan of Brunei (whose regime is not known for its hospitality toward women, or its appreciation of human rights).

You’re appalled, right? Or perhaps you’re thinking: I’d book a really cool band for my private party like those guys, if only I could afford it. Judging from their marketing website, you might be able to afford Guns N’ Roses. But if you’re not a bloodthirsty dictator with torture-and-assassination squads at your command, good luck making sure they show up.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate