That account is now generally accepted by Western governments, although it is based on fragmentary reports. It is rejected by Uzbek authorities, who say that 173 people, mostly Muslim terrorists, died. And it follows reports of brutal treatment of dissidents; at least one was boiled to death.

Human Rights Watch, the New York-based group, in a report this week called Andijan a “massacre”, although it did not offer a death toll. It called on America to cut its ties with President Karimov.

The United States, more than Europe, faces a nasty dilemma. At the simplest, it is between self-interest and principle. But behind that are muddier questions about whether US self-interest really lies in backing President Karimov. President Bush, in his inaugural address and State of the Union speech this year, declaimed the US commitment to propagating democracy around the world.

That rhetoric provides ammunition for those who like to spot hypocrisy in US foreign policy. In places where self- interest dictates, goes the charge, the US is happy to support nasty tyrants such as President Karimov.

Fair point, in a limited sense. But a bit of realpolitik is in- escapable. On its own it does not fatally contaminate a foreign policy which claims overall to be ideologically based. And Uzbekistan is much farther from home than Guantanamo, where the US is more searingly exposed to the charge that it is breaking its commitment to justice and human rights on its own soil.

On the other hand, President Bush’s declaration of principles does demand that the US make some effort to justify its support of President Karimov. That is becoming harder to do.

The most conspicuous sign of US interest is its Karshi Kahabad military base, which was useful in the Afghan war and which it has asked President Karimov to make permanent.

Since September 11, 2001, the US has been keen to build ties with what appeared to be a stable regime in a region where violent upheaval has been predicted since the Soviet Union fell apart, and where Islamic militants are thriving.

The US has helped to train Uzbek forces (one Democratic senator has asked whether they took part in the killings).

These are not empty reasons for engagement, although reports of the regime’s ugly behaviour will make the position steadily more uncomfortable for the US.

But the practical aspect of the dilemma is that the US does not want to side with a hated regime that is going to fall; a recipe for earning the lasting resentment of Uzbeks. Nor does it want to back President Karimov if his repression drives ordinary Uzbeks into the arms of Islamic militants.

There are certainly signs of ambivalence within the Bush Administration about whether to maintain the policy. One senior US official, speaking anonymously, said in London on May 27 that the military base “is important but not crucial. No one in the Uzbek Government should assume that we need them so much they can abuse their people.”

But that is what the regime has assumed, and so far it has been right, although pressure is mounting. Britain has called for an international investigation into Andijan. The US backed this, a little later. The EU has asked to send an envoy. The International Committee of the Red Cross has asked for access.

All have been denied, or met with silence. Other tools avail- able to the West may be suspending EU aid, or US talks on its military base. The World Bank also has several missions scheduled (suspended this week after security warnings).

The US and Europe are not devoid of tools if they choose to apply more pressure. But so far they have been inhibited by not knowing exactly what happened in Andijan, and more fundamentally, not being sure whether they are prepared for President Karimov to fall.

Explore World News

• Iraq News

• US & Americas News

• Europe News

• Middle East News

• Asia News

• Africa News

• Ireland News

Times Recommends

• Putin set to bait US with nuclear aid for Tehran
• North Korea ‘uses doubles to hide death of Kim’
• Academics label Charlie Wilson too 'gung-ho'