SCO: Epilogue 2007
The party’s over:
The SCO Summit in Bishkek this past week wrapped up with barely a stir in the Western news, and after seeking in vain for a keynote sentence to sum it up, I learned there wasn’t one. Joshua Kucera at his blog Istanbul - Beijing was able to cover the summit: his first impression was that there was a lot of speechifying about friendship. In this post he also discussed media resources, which looked considerable. They provided virtual access to all public events via electronics, but media correspondents were not allowed to interface as often directly. This sound like a lot of large event coverage if you’re asking me, and it’s largely tolerated everywhere. . . though unsatisfying. In the end there was no press conference.
Nevertheless, though nothing striking or comprehensive may have been announced, that does not mean that the meeting did not make progress within. Just meeting together provides benefits and forums for unofficial exchanges and the strengthening of bilateral and multilateral ties, practice in the arts of diplomacy, and so forth. The main announcement out of the conference was that there would be continued economic cooperation–especially energy cooperationand signed a “Long Term Agreement on Neighborly Relations.” These included: economic cooperation, particularly in energy cooperation, and security cooperation, particularly military training and counternarcotics initiatives.
With that, let’s go to the winners and losers: just remember, though, everybody won that participated overall, despite my “scoring” below:
Kazakhstan:
Win +3: Increased regional economic integration is important to Kazakhstan’s WTO bid. Increased regional energy cooperation will mean more infrastructure development for Kazakhstan. Cooperation will also help Kazakhstan’s prestige as it funds development from its new EADB bank.
Lose -1: Much of this increased development may have adverse effects on Kazakhstan’s eastern territory.
Kyrgyzstan:
Win +2 1/2: A successful meeting with full technological and logistical spectrum met, which adds to the country’s prestige. An opportunity, therefore, to assist Tajikistan in hosting the 2008 Summit. And, as Mirsulzhan Namazaliev reports, a new train route from China to Kyrgyzstan, which will increase Kyrgyzstan’s trade opportunities. General SCO interest in counter-narcotics can only help Kyrgyzstan.
Lose -1 1/2: Although some energy cooperation will include water cooperation, the emphasis was on oil. Furthermore, Mirsulzhan reports that Kyrgyzstan, as a less-powerful country, did not assert itself much within the confines of the Summit. Therefore, previously-announced upgrading of the diplomatic section is not to be wondered at. But also, now that Kyrgyzstan has hosted the SCO for the first time, they have gained a lot of experience. More luck next year.
Tajikistan:
Win +2: Four general gains, none specific: Most of Tajikistan’s gains came before the conference, as Iran has come courting Tajikistan with economic cooperation as part of its diplomacy to achieve SCO membership. The hydropower plants envisioned for Tajikistan seem to be well-supported under SCO auspices. A good look at what will be necessary for hosting next years’ conference. General interest in counter-narcotics will be of great help to Tajikistan in the upcoming year.
Lose -1: Uzbekistan made its intentions fairly obvious with Mr. Karimov’s speech against hydropower installations which make it less easy for Mr. Karimov to waste water with impunity. This could cause trouble between the two states, which is a solid loss.
Uzbekistan:
Win +1/2: As I said, going is worth something.
Lose -1: Aforementioned hydropower development is going to make Mr. Karimov consider what to do about water shortages. However, it will be easier to make trouble with Tajikistan than it will be to fix Uzbekistan’s sagging infrastructure, so bilateral diplomacy between the two states will take on some rancor.
Iran: an observer nation.
Win +2: Increased efforts at bilateral diplomacy in Tajikistan and Turkmenistan have borne positive results. Mr. Ahmadinejad was able to speak at the conference. Potential results look good.
Lose -1: Stepped-up counternarcotics efforts in Central Asia mean changes in narcotics distribution patterns for Iran, which could create some pressure in its Eastern regions. However, if Iran is included in any counter-narcotics coordination, this might not be much of a loss.
Pakistan: another observer nation.
Win + 1/2: Pakistan attended, which is good, and spoke publicly.
Lose -1 1/2: Pakistan’s very public urgency to join SCO was politely rebuffed, and any stepped-up counter-narcotics in Central Asia will put pressure on Pakistan’s border patrols.
Turkmenistan: (an observer)
Win + 2: The warm welcome extended by member states and the diplomacy from wannabe member states was marked. Mr. Berdymukhamedov did not speak at the conference, which probably suited him well, as he is moving carefully toward increased diplomatic relations.
Lose: nothing. It’s a honeymoon period for Turkmenistan right now, although some of Uzbekistan’s water concerns might well be shared by Turkmenistan.
The United States:
Win +1 1/2: Apparently earlier ultimatums from the U.S. had an effect, as no proclamation of U.S. hegemony was tendered at the end of the conference. Also, UN Undersecretary Pascoe attended, formerly of the U.S. Department of State. It’s a temporary win.
Lose -2: Stepped up counter-narcotics operations in Central Asia will probably change some of the character of narcotics traffic in Afghanistan, which I don’t think the U.S. is ready for. The increased cooperation within the SCO underlines the failing initiative of the U.S. toward Central Asia’s Republics.
Other attendees: Mr. Karzai of Afghanistan. Other attendees who made speeches: India and Mongolia. Oh, and China and Russia? Solid wins, across the board. But you knew that already.
August 20th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Yes, you’re right that it wasn’t that different from large event coverage everywhere. And though I haven’t covered a lot of large events, while maybe they’re 90 percent dog-and-pony show, there are tiny opportunities to get people in the halls, talk to outliers on the meetings who will brief you on details, and so on. This was striking because there was absolutely nothing.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:30 am
Dear Josh,
I wonder how it compares with SCO coverage in China and Russia. One thing I have wondered: was Kyrgyzstan too worried about a mis-step to allow something that Russia, at least, would have been more ready for?
If that is part of it, then we can probably expect Tajikistan next year to go the same way.
Anyway, I’m very grateful for your posts on the conference. I don’t mind telling you, I laughed myself silly at the absurdity. In the absence of real news, all that’s left is for people to make outsized conspiracy claims . . . and I am glad you are not one of that number.
Come visit anytime,
Bonnie
August 21st, 2007 at 5:25 pm
[…] These two takes on the SCO exercises (covered in sometimes much greater depth here, at Registan.net, and Bonnie Boyd’s Central Asia blog) have some interesting tidbits: the PLA has never performed a distance deployment before, and it’s a lot of hoopla over nothing, since they didn’t mean much and didn’t accomplish much by our standards. Our standards. Our standards are pretty high—a decade ago we were air-dropping battalions from Missouri to Shymkent non-stop—and not matching such incredible capability doesn’t matter very much. The real purpose of this exercise was coordination, and a sort of show-of-force: proving other countries can organize outside of NATO and the UNSC. That being said, the irrational hostility toward the Chinese is beyond tiresome at this point. China has no real expeditionary capability to speak of, and could never sustain any sort of foreign deployment without significant foreign support (the Chinese troops in Lebanon and Darfur are supported by UN logistics, for example). What’s more, not since invading Vietnam in 1979 have they deployed troops beyond their borders without UN sanction—a milestone we have yet to match. China is also hypersensitive to world opinion and its foreign relations in a way I wish we could be, which gives them a great deal of gravitas (if you will) when dealing with collective security issues. So I chalk the SCO exercises up to a big-time win for China… and a medium win for Russia, and all the other SCO countries. And of course, a big smack on the nose to the U.S.—perhaps not coincidentally just as Ms. Boyd did. These sorts of wargames are never (I should say rarely) about war itself or the militaries involved, they about the politics of the individual nations, and the nations at which they are directed. […]