Central Asia

“To be honest, they abandoned us.”

Unnamed Uzbek who fled the country in April, voicing his displeasure with the West’s rapprochement with the Karimov regime.

The three year anniversary of the Andijon incident in Uzbekistan is upon us and I have found two interesting articles discussing its significance in the here and now, mainly regarding the West/US reengagement with the nation’s government. The horrific incident involved a government security operation to put down what the Karimov regime called a ‘Islamic terrorist’ insurrection, and caused the deaths of around 700 Uzbek citizens.

This is where the debate begins, as like in nearly all things in life there are at least two stories concerning one event. The Uzbek government only acknowledges 187 deaths and as was mentioned, argues that it was a threat to its rule and the nation’s stability. Human rights groups and the West/US maintain that the 700 death total is more accurate and that most of the protesters were peaceful and just asking for economic assistance.

This event has been widely reported in the West and much can be read about what happened, but what is most important today, is the ramifications for the Karimov regime and its diplomatic and strategic relations with the West/US. It has been reported on this site, that the EU, by means of energy cooperation and lessening of a visa ban, and the US, a visit from Admiral Fallon, the opening of the Termez base for US use, and a new railway link traversing Uzbek territory to be utilized by NATO, have made efforts to work with the Karimov regime, despite the Andijon incident and its continual denial of its human rights abuses. New York Times writer, Sabrina Tavernise, and Radio Free Europe’s Farangis Najibullah discuss the West’s recent rapprochement and debate whether this is a effective and moral policy choice. In other words, should the Western nations with strategic interests in Uzbek and CA, Afghanistan stability, energy supplies, ignore the regimes human rights abuses and just focus on promoting specific interests, or should they stand strong and not allow incidents like Andijon be swept under the rug? By examining the US/West relations with Uzbek, one would have to say it features a little bit of both worlds.

Each side has valid and respectable arguments; “By talking and working with them we can further our interests and bring them out of their shell” or “Only by getting tough with leaders like Karimov will any real progress come.”

This debate has been central to international relations for years and it has especially gained new relevance with the Bush administration’s foreign policy doctrine of spreading democracy, ending totalitarianism, and isolating ‘enemy’ regimes such as Iran, North Korea, and Hezbollah. But as we have seen all policies may be rewritten and fudged (US reengagement with NK)

Some final questions; What does the Andijon incident mean to the Uzbek people (read Tavernise to hear some interesting views)? What does it mean to/for the Karimov government? What should it mean to US/West? What does it mean to you? To the Uzbek government the incident is ‘dead,’ with these news reports the West is obviously keeping it alive, what does this say?

We’ve had a ‘Good News’ blog and another lighthearted one of various links, but the good times are over! Thanks to Freedom House’s newly released Freedom of the Press 2007 Survey, we can put the good feelings behind us as our Central Asian states received bleak, down-trending outlooks. The Survey concluded that Press Freedom was in retreat throughout the world, the six year in a row the Survey concluded this, and that many former Soviet States regressed the most dramatically. In fact, most Central Asian and Caucasus countries received lower grades than last year and Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan garnered ’special’ mention as two of the most media repressed societies in the world. Freedom House’s website has a thorough amalgam of description’s, charts, and analysis of the survey that should not be missed. Also, here is a short description of the Survey’s findings from Eurasianet.org.

Just like Freedom House’s overall Freedom Rankings, in this survey a nation is ranked either Free, Partly Free, or Not Free based on these three categories:

1. Political influence on reporting and access to information

2. Legal environment in which media outlets operate

3. Economic Pressure on content and the dissemination of news

Each nation was ranked on a scale of 0-100, with 100 representing complete government control over mass media, and zero indicating perfect freedom.

Kyrgyzstan- 70, Downward trend, government pressure on public broadcast media affecting the political environment

Turkmenistan- 96, Same score, only Burma and North Korea received a worse score, the report stated ‘the government retained its absolute monopoly over all media, directly controlling not only media outlets, but also the printing presses and other infrastructure’

Uzbekistan- 92, up one point from last year, the report states that Uzbek authorities ’showed no respect for freedom of speech or of the press’

Kazakhstan- 78, two point increase, the report acknowledged widespread government control and the harassment of independent journalists and editors

Tajikistan- 77, the report criticized its treatment of journalists and the introduction of amendments criminalizing libel and defamation on the Internet

An overall poor showing for the whole region.

An ongoing story I came across recently exemplifies the region’s problems with a free and secure media environment. It appears the government of Kazakhstan has blocked Radio Free Europe’s (RFE/RL), an independent news and broadcast organization funded by the US Congress, website. RFE/RL President Jeffrey Gedmin at first thought it might be a technical problem, now, after the Kazak government failed to respond to several inquiries, suggests that this is a case of ‘deliberate interference.’ This shutdown does not only affect Kazak’s population, but the people in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kyrgyzstan as KazTelecom, the state telecom operator, is the key Internet service provider across all of CA.

This situation is getting serious as OSCE representative on media freedom, Miklos Haraszti, sent a formal letter to the Kazak government asking why the service has been interrupted and requesting that it be brought back right away. It is important to know that Kazakhstan stands to take over the OSCE Chairmanship in 2010 and has faced much criticism from many human rights group in the West who are against a country with such a poor record holding such an important position. This event is drawing fresh attention to Kazakhstan’s repressive government, no doubt attention it does not desire. Haraszti uses rather strong language in his letter stating;

‘I am convinced that the state Internet service providers were informed by your government that interference in providing service would violate Kazakhstan’s press freedom commitments.’ He adds that OSCE’s Permanent Council Decision No. 633, states that participating states must pledge ‘to take action to ensure that the Internet remains an open and public forum for freedom of opinion and expression.’

As of right now, no Kazak government official has publicly responded to the letter.

In the same report, Turkmenistan’s government was criticized for harassing and intimidating various Radio Free Europe correspondents. In addition, Kyrgyzstan has a new media bill that some argue would crush any positive steps that have been taken since their 2005 popular uprising.

Freedom House’s media survey and these recent events portray a region in the dark and one whose leadership wants to keep it that way.

Happy Memorial Day to all those who have put their lives on the line for their respective nation and people.

I was going to discuss the latest Freedom House Media Report, but was having problems accessing their website. Maybe Kazakhstan’s government has gotten to them too! Expect this tomorrow or soon after.

Kyrg seismic activity researchers forecast a large earthquake in Central Asia in the next couple years and a mild one in the next two months. This is obviously concerning, especially with China’s horrific recent experience.

UCLA’s Asia Institute and partners launched a Central Asia Initiative whose goal is to better understand societies and cultures long ‘on the fringes.’ A conference will be held in October and will ask ‘what changed on the steppes of Central Asia as states acquired the means to move and deport whole peoples.’

For a unrelated Central Asia Initiative project, Doug Chabot, a mountaineer, is a one-man humanitarian mission in Pakistan and Afghanistan, working to promote education by visiting local schools.

‘Compulsory Reading‘- Uzbek’s President Karimov has a brand new ‘book that won’t be read’ called “Morality Is Invincible Power” a supposed spiritual guide for all Uzbeks and don’t worry if you’re from another country, it’s for you too! And I thought my summer reading list was bad.

Let’s join the club!

Unfortunately, a definitive majority of news I report on and discuss on this blog is of the negative kind. It does them a true adage that good news is not really news people tend to be drawn to. I looked at many of the reports, articles, and other blog topic ideas I have gathered recently and about 50% were negative toned and most of the others were strictly analytical, with only a few being positive. There is good news in Central Asia, right?

Yes, there is. But like most things in life it comes with caveats and concerns. The latest IMF Regional Economic Outlook for the Middle East and Central Asia sees a ‘Bright‘ outlook. The report cites commodity prices remaining high, surging investments, and strong productivity gains as it predicts sustained growth above 6% in the region. The Outlook states that all the countries included, except Kazakhstan, were largely unscathed by the recent financial downturn enveloping the developed world. It is true that much of the growth has to do with tremendous rise in energy prices and the fact that many of the world’s major energy suppliers are from these two regions, but the Outlook does an effective job of organizing the region’s nations into three categories, oil exporters, low-income countries, and emerging markets, and offering separate analysis’s of their unique situation.

Even with positive signs of economic growth the region has many structural problems and poverty is blatant throughout CA, but this is overall good news. The region, like the rest of the world, is indeed going through tough economic times, and in some cases things appear to be getting worse, not better. But growth is positive, and hopefully this continues and signifies a brighter future for the region.

About a month ago we discussed the implications for new Russian presidency of Dmitry Medvedev for Central Asia, Russian domestic politics, and the world in general. Would Medvedev be Putin’s puppet? Would he be a liberalizer? What could we expect from him regarding relations between Russia and the Central Asian states? We are about to find out.

Medvedev is scheduled to make his first foreign diplomatic visit to Astana, Kazakhstan on May 22-23 and President Nazarbayev (Here’s a little background analysis) has already made a few phone calls to the new leader to open up discussions on ‘bilateral relations and international issues.’ (a little vague) However, Sergei Blagov has reported that the Kazak defense department has already signed numerous lucrative contracts with Russian arms powerhouse Rosoboronexport and other Kazak officials reiterated the two nations ’strategic’ alliance. Blagov highlighted growing trade between the two states in recent years featuring double digit increases.

But things are not getting too cozy; as the issue of oil contracts, prices, and pipelines looks to be a clashing point between the two resource-rich states and this could be a harbinger for Uzbek and Turkmenistan-Russian relations in the Medvedev term as well. Blagov reports that Russia desperately desires to increase output from the Baku-Novorossiysk pipeline, which would continue to orientate Kazak resources towards Russia, but it appears that Nazarbayev has not given in. Medvedev was a long time member of Gazprom’s board, including its chairman, and it appears likely that he will want to ‘tighten the knot’ on the region’s energy resources. Russia is clearly concerned that Kazak and CA other resource-rich states will start moving more and more of the oil and gas towards Europe directly through the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, already functioning, and the Trans-Caspian, not yet a reality, pipelines.

Analyst Sergei Blagov seems to think that Medvedev and Russia can have some success in this energy politics, but as we have discussed before, Stephen Blank argues that Russia’s position in this regard is growing weaker and weaker, while China and the CA states gain still greater leverage. We will have to wait and see how Medvedev’s visit to Astana, and his following trip to gas-rich Turkmenistan, work out. Medvedev will not let Russia’s resource monopoly fall without a fight.

I would like to quickly draw attention to New York University’s Political Science MA Program’s online Journal of Political Inquiry, which features an article on US/Pakistan relations, Iran/US relations and the policy of containment, Albania’s process of democratization, and a short book review of Paul Berman’s Terror and Liberalism, by yours truly.

Afghan’s culture and societal battles are of utmost important in the overall fight for the country’s future, but the Afghan and NATO armies are still the key-holders to success on all fronts. Their ability to stand up or stand down against the Taliban and other insurgent forces will be a crucial determining factor as the outcome of this conflict. Hudson Institute scholar Richard Weitz discusses what he calls a growing ‘war weariness’ with Afghan, European, and American troops in Afghanistan and with this combined with a Karzai government that has already shown it is willing to negotiate with insurgents, negotiated talks of a pull out may not be as far away as we think.

NATO forces reiterated their support for the Afghan effort last month in Bucharest, but Weitz sees some cracks. He does not provide much evidence or sources, but he claims that many of the foreign actors in the conflict ‘are willing to scale back reconstruction objectives in order to end the fighting, declare victory, and leave.’ What is of true value in his piece is his breakdown of possible negotiated settlements with the Karzai government/NATO forces and the Taliban and their related insurgents. He opines that Karzai desires a more stable political footing before the upcoming elections and an agreement with certain Taliban sects/members could strengthen his influence throughout the country and chances of reelection.

Weitz also compares the possible Afghan negotiations with the insurgents to Pakistan’s own talks and agreements with their across the border North Waziristan Provinces. The Pakistan model does not provide one with much hope as those regions have continually provided the Taliban reprieve and a launching pad for attacks with in Afghanistan, plain and simple they have not pacified the population and brought it under stable control. Also important, is the fact that the Taliban have already been autonomous in one city in southern Afghanistan, Musa Qala, and they ruled it with their usual extreme and totalitarian ways of pre-2001.

The situation in Afghanistan is not going great for any party involved, and I know that someday there will need to be comprises made on all sides, but to me, the US/NATO did not go into Afghanistan just to leave back in the hands of a group that made its populace miserable for years.

Weitz finishes his article arguing that NATO still appears ready to be there for the long haul and its progress on a land based transit hub into the country proves this. There are new reports that a railway to transport non-military goods across Russia and many Central Asian states, which would save NATO millions of dollars because airlifting is so expensive, is looking close to becoming a reality. The report even cites a source who asserts that if all goes well, NATO will ask if it can send military goods on the rails.

Why would Russia and the Central Asian states allow NATO to use their land? One is transit fees and all cargo on these trains will be taxable. Number two is the security umbrella that NATO would provide for fighting the Taliban and other Islamic insurgents in the region. These forces may find their way out of Afghanistan and into Central Asia is NATO is unsuccessful in the efforts there. Drug trafficking is also an area where NATO can provide policing assistance. For Russia, by allowing this transit, it provides them leverage in other NATO endeavors such as the missile defense system in Czech and Poland, NATO expansion, and the opportunity to let the US/NATO fight the insurgents in the CA while Russia gains back some of its lost great power status. Of course, I don’t see how this doesn’t undermine the influence and seeming effectiveness of the Russia-dominated CSTO, CIS, and even the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

There are many fronts to all wars and the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan is no different. NATO forces have supreme firepower to use against the Taliban insurgents, but this alone cannot defeat them and secure a safe and free nation. The Karzai government needs to produce good governance for its peoples and a civil society needs to be able to flourish for real progress. Deirdre Tynan writes in Eurasianet about how a recent battle over the appropriateness of two Indian soap opera style television shows, with some calling them ‘un-Islamic,’ exemplifies many of the different fronts in Afghanistan’s ongoing conflict.

Tynan argues that this television show’s ability to withstand vehement criticism from Taliban and extremist sources is in a way a litmus test for the Karzai’s government ability to truly lead and build a free and stable Afghanistan. The show’s two producers are interviewed and back their show, which is reportedly the most watched program in the country, and their right to show it. The Afghan government’s Ministry of Information and Culture has called for the show’s cancellation, which the producers and even a Freedom House analyst, call a larger attempt to undermine freedom of expression. They argue that Karzai is just trying to placate the more conservative elements in the country.

This challenging episode does provide a glimpse of progress however, besides the fact that under Taliban rule a show like this would never had made it on the air, as two civil society groups, the Afghan National Journalists Union and Nai, an Afghan media development organization, have come to the defense of the Indian soap operas and called on the government to stop their meddling.

The battles in and for Afghanistan are many and this may be just one small skirmish, but when a society/government is weak, disjointed, and young even small things can have large importance. The rights of the Afghan people need to be defended and for this to happen its government, NATO forces and leaders, civil society, and each individual in the nation will need to fight the good fight.

To offer some sweet relief for your Monday blues, here’s some Central Asian geopolitical analytical madness! A couple of weeks ago we discussed the EU’s attempts at diversifying CA gas exports to circumvent Russian territory and influence, mainly in Turkmenistan. In addition, on this blog we have talked about China and India’s growing role in the region, once again usually centered on natural resources. The geopolitics surrounding CA’s ‘Great Game’ have been analyzed for decades, but I must admit the stories and actors involved remain vibrant and the debate about who’s winning and losing rages on.

Professor Stephen Blank, from the US Army War College, has written an excellent piece analyzing Russia’s March 11 deal with Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan to buy their gas at world prices. He argues that this move signifies a weakening Russian position in the region (and possibly in Europe) and rising regional cooperation between the Central Asian gas and oil producing states. Blank sees the region opening up for natural resource competition with an aggressive China with a voracious oil/gas appetite and the EU showing greater policy cohesion in regional resource negotiations. He asserts that this competition is forcing Russia into compromising positions (the price hike) and heightening the importance and negotiating posture of the CA states.

If one has been following the news lately, this analysis appears to be more right than wrong. Although, I believe Blank is overstating Russia’s weakness (though not as much as this piece), he is right that the CA strategic resource holding states have gained an increasing amount of leverage with suitors from China, EU, US, and India joining Russia. Whether the CA states can use this an opportunity to heighten their regional cooperation, which has never been strong unless you count Soviet domination in the 20th century, is another story.

Blank argues that Russia desperately desires to keep China’s actions in the region in line by chaining them down in an energy club based in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, where they can work together to separate and exploit the CA states and keep the US/EU out of the loop at the same time. This is good policy for Russia in that it needs to be careful not to allow a CA with unchecked natural resource competition, but the SCO has not proven itself to be a strong enough group to hold its cohesiveness (aka Russia-China partnership) when it comes to such a vital national interest as oil/gas procurement. The SCO also receives weak marks in curtailing EU/US influence in the region. The US has its largest presence in the region (mainly due to the Afghanistan war) ever and as this article showcases, the EU is making progress in its energy dealings in the region.

Is Russia’s hold on Central Asia, specifically regarding natural resources, ebbing or is its faltering influence highly exaggerated? Does the March 11 agreement portend rising regional cooperation between Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan? Is more open competition for resources involving India, Russia, China, EU, and the US good or bad for the CA states? Do you think it was tough for Professor Stephen to grow up with the last name ‘Blank’?

The world has been facing some tough days recently. Burma’s tsunami, western China’s earthquake, and the continual rising of food prices has wreaked havoc on many of the world’s poorest people. As has been discussed earlier, food prices have been escalating in Central Asis for months now and show no signs of slowing. These rising prices have affected nearly everyone in the world, but the poor are especially vulnerable with one Kazakhstani woman stating ‘all we buy is food, food and food’ and some cannot even do that.

This situation is not only dreadful because of the human suffering, but in the possibilities for greater unrest and instability in nations and societies already in tenious situations, such as Afghanistan where World Food Program officials are warning that the poor and unemployed are being hit the hardest and that their is fear for greater unrest. It has been reported that millions of Afghani’s are spending up to 70% of their income on food alone and that many are starting to go hungry.

Even Kazakhstan, the world’s fifth largest wheat exporter, has been hit hard by this problem. Its citizens purchasing power has been ‘devasted’ by these rising food prices and the overall economy is suffering, with a Standard & Poor official predicting that its economic growth will fall sharply to below 4% in 2008, well below its recent double digit levels.

Central and Greater Asia are also facing rising levels of inflation as this story reports, the region’s central banks are going to have to soon make major decisions concerning interest rates. They must decide if food inflation itself warrants a corrective move in interest rates. Glen Maguire, a chief economist in the region, stated that the key debate was ‘how soon the central banks make the transition from viewing food price inflation as a short-term, cost-push effect to treating it as a long-term structural driver of inflation.’ In these banker’s eyes, this does not appear to be an ebbing problem that will go away anytime soon.

Lastly, here is a sobering piece detailing the health-related problems stemming from malnutrition, facing many of Central Asia’s most unfortunate.

Just a quick one today folks. If you haven’t checked it out yet, make sure to take a look at the post on May 11 ‘A Autocratic Dawn’, I think it raises an important issue that will and has affected CA and the world.

EurasiaNet has written a scathing report chronicling the Tajikistan government’s voluntary tax request from some of its poorest citizens in order to raise $10 million dollars to finance the Rogun project. The news outlet calls the tax ‘arbitrary’ and ‘confiscatory’ and rightly claims that it will dramatically hurt the poorest of the nation for amounts to a very small percentage of the projects ultimate budget, around $550 million. The people of Tajik deserve better and if this money is raised, the government needs to be transparent of its use, otherwise it will disillusion its populace to an even greater degree.

Kyrgyzistan’s President Bakiyev has provided a one-time compensation payment of $14,600 to 72 children and their families, who were accidentally infected with the AIDS virus in two southern Kyrg hospitals, because of what has been asserted as medical personnel negligence. This is a tragic way for progress to be spurred, but hopefully this is a sign that the Kyrg government is going to start taking HIV/AIDS prevention more seriously.