Central Asia

China, an autocratic state that directly denies the freedoms of the press, speech, religion, and assembly to its citizens, and has shown oppressive measures in dealing with its minority factions, among them Muslim Uighurs and the people of Tibet, is about to host a world event like no other, the Olympics. Now the US has shown in its history that it stands for the very opposite of what was detailed about China’s governmental rule, so should we expect a political and human rights outcry?  We should and it exists, as will be discussed, but unfortunately these issues cannot completely overshadow other realities that are also vital to US existence, for instance the tremendous amount of trade and debt between the two nations and the fact that China is a geopolitical force to be reckoned with in many parts of the globe. The US Congress and President Bush need to take both of these factors into account when they come up with a diplomatic posture toward China during this Olympic season.

The House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning China’s anti-democratic and human rights activities at home and abroad. Here is the Resolution;

“H. Res. ____, Calling on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to immediately end its abuses of the human rights of China’s citizens, including its Tibetan, Uighur, and other ethnic minority citizens and to end its support for the governments of Sudan and Burma to ensure that the Olympic games take place in an atmosphere that honors the Olympic traditions of freedom and openness.”

The New York Times editorial page praised this resolution and demanded more from President Bush who will be attending the opening ceremony. On Tuesday, Bush, who has been quiet on the issue thus far, met with 5 Chinese dissidents, Harry Wu, Wei Jingsheng, Rebiya Kadeer, Sasha Gong and Bob Fu at the White House. He assured them that ‘he will carry their message of freedom as he travels to Beijing.’ The very same day Bush met privately with China’s foreign minister Yang Jiechi, though what they discussed is unknown. Michael Green, an Asia expert and former Bush adviser, argued that Bush’s meeting with the dissidents was a big step, ‘these are people designed to get the Chinese’s attention. It was not just a political move to provide cover at home. It was an important move to let Chinese leaders know that he’s not satisfied with the progress.’

Bush is definitely playing it closer to the vest than the members of Congress, New York Times, or groups such as Amnesty International, and I think that is largely okay. (Isn’t it interesting that these are largely the same people who criticize Bush for not engaging with Iran and Hezbollah enough) Bush is the head of state and needs to show a certain amount of respect toward the Chinese people and the Olympics, he’s got to walk a fine line. I think it is productive to let members of Congress force the issue, as Congressman Howard Berman stated about the House resolution; it is a “direct call to China by the House of Representatives to end human rights abuses, honor its commitments for freedom of the press and freedom of movement ahead of the Olympics, permit peaceful political activities during the Games, enter into direct discussions with the Dalai Lama over the future of Tibet, and end its political and economic support of the regimes in Sudan and Burma”
The Chinese government has failed to make political reforms as Olympic hosts, as this story about their website blocking showcases, and this is indeed unfortunate, but groups and institutions like the US congress, EU, and Amnesty International need to keep the pressure on. And yes, I expect Bush to do more of this as well before, during, and after his visit, but in just a bit more nuanced way.

Last week I went over two articles from journal International Security which both discussed the deteriorating security and governance situation along the Afghan/Pakistan border. Both articles emphasized Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, as being either too weak, lacking decent effort, or of actually being a partner in some of the Taliban’s insurgent efforts against NATO and the Afghan government. In fact, both papers’ accusations were rather damning against the ISI. Combine this analysis and evidence along with a report by the New York Times today regarding a high level visit by the CIA and Joint Chief of Staff Adm. Mullen with Pakistan’s government leaders, where the US side outlined accusations against the ISI’s role in the insurgency. The CIA and US military specifically accused the ISI of having continual links with the militant network lead by Maulavi Jalaluddin Haqqani, who is known to have direct links to members of Al Qaeda. The article also discusses how Pakistan’s nascent civilian government was having a hard time asserting control over the intelligence agency.

This is not the first time the US has sent senior officials to Pakistan to discuss ISI nefarious links, and the CIA and the ISI do have a long standing relationship that has been peppered with suspicion and ‘mutual deception’ since the days of the Soviet takeover in Afghanistan. But this meeting and the dire situation along the Afghan/Pak border, including a recent flare up in violence between Sunnis and Shia in Pakistan’s Parachinar, where the Taliban are showing increasing strength and violence, may portend a deteriorating relationship between the two spy agencies. Even a mild break between the two would have major ramifications and this should be avoided at all cost. Both sides desire stability in the region and they need to find mutual ground to work on. Suspicion is there on both sides, here is an article published in the Pakistan Daily showcasing a deep concern over US ambitions in the region, but the stakes are too high. The US risks losing control in Afghanistan and allowing Al Qaeda to recuperate and the Pakistan’s new civilian government is facing a colossal test in its northern territories, a test it must pass to keep its nation intact.

In March of this year, Republican Presidential candidate John McCain made a major foreign policy speech at the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles. (Video and Text) In this speech, McCain proposes isolating Russia, specifically from the G-8:

“We should start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia. Rather than tolerate Russia’s nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks, Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization’s doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom.”

If the US stops ‘tolerating’ Russia’s undemocratic and aggressive behavior, what would be the effects? More specifically, if the US tried to isolate Russia, how would this affect the US/West’s approach and relations with most of the Central Asian states, whom Russia is a nation they could never even think of ‘ignoring’?

Under new President Medvedev, Russia’s presence in CA has been strong of late. Medvedev has visited Kazakhstan multiple times and just finished conducting a three stop tour through the region trying to secure gas rights, and curtail the West’s attempts to do the same. Radio Free Europe’s reporter Farangis Najibullah has discussed Moscow’s growing military expansion in the region, mainly regarding Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. The article also quotes Uzbek President Karimov as advocating the merger of the Russian controlled CSTO and Eurasec to create a ‘powerful union capable of becoming a counterbalance to NATO and the EU.” Najibullah asserts that the US/West have made some strides in increasing their presence in the region, mainly due to the Afghanistan war, but argues that aid given on conditions of human rights and democracy promotion and just plain old simple geography and its historical links, favor closer CA state relations with Russia. However, an article by Eurasia Daily’s Roger McDermott argues that he sees ’subtle’ changes in Tajikistan’s foreign policy, indicating a trend toward a more independent security and defense posture. But cautions that this does not necessary mean the nation will turn toward the West, more likely close neighbors Afghanistan and Iran (India?).

Lastly, Eurasianet.org wrote a piece arguing that the US/West were making great gains in the CA region, specifically regarding irking Gazprom and increasingly the likelihood of gas pipelines circumventing Russia on their way to Europe (Trans-Caspian and Nabucco), and that this was putting Russia on the ‘defensive.’ The article does not posit too strong of an arguement backing this claim, but the EU/US push for gas supplies, aid, and the NATO presence in Afghanistan and in some CA states, has unquestionably made Russia recalibrate its interests and influence in the region, and Medvedev’s recent visits should be seen in this regard. Russia would not be doubling the price of CA gas imports if this were not the case.

So the US/West has made some progress in the region, and Russia has also proven to be able to fight back, but what would happen if McCain’s proposed alienation of Russia come to fruition? How would it affect the US and Russian posture in Central Asia? I do not believe McCain is advocating a complete reduction in Russian engagement, but mainly in international organizations, such as the G-8. Russia and the US have too much shared interests in the region to completely back away from working together, as was pointed out in an Op-Ed by former Sec of State Albright and Defense Sec William J. Perry. The US and Russia share interests regarding counterterrorism, preventing Iran building nuclear weapons, securing nuclear materials, maintaining/creating stability in Afghanistan and in Central Asia as a whole. The US needs Russia to help keep the region stable, curb China’s encroachments, and fight terrorism. Russia needs the US presence in the region for nearly the same things, stability of Afghanistan and beyond and to block Chinese advancements. Now when McCain bashes Russia it mainly has to do with their autocratic internal ways and how these are pushed out into the wider world, for example their use of cyber-warfare and freezing gas supplies to their ‘uncooperative’ neighbors. And it is true that Russia will not lift a finger to help liberalize, democratize, or create greater transparency in CA state governments, and the US/EU will inevitably try to promote this, so there will be inevitable clashes. McCain is right to call Russia’s on its unproductive and aggressive behavior, but the nation surely cannot be just pushed out of important organizations, especially in Central Asia.

What do you think?

Karin Esposito, the FPA’s blogger on Religion and Politics and Project Manager for the Tajikistan Dialogue Project in Dushanbe, recently wrote about a new draft law ‘Freedom of Religious Practices and Religious Organizations’ being debated by the Kyrg government. Karin, with the help of an article by Erica Marat, discusses the reasons and possible ramifications of the proposed legislation, which Kyrg’s neighbor Tajikistan is also considering. The law ‘purports to prevent the emergence of totalitarian religious organizations’ by introducing more restrictive registration requirements.

This new proposed law once again brings to the forefront the continual debate between security and individual and group liberties. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan do indeed have a real security threat in radical Islamist groups and individual that threaten not only the state, but also the nation’s and region’s citizens, as I discussed last week the rising number of militants making their way to the Afghan/Pakistan border to join the insurgency from these Central Asian states. But though the governments of Tajik and Kyrg are far from the most repressive in the region, they are still far from democracies and repress their citizens’ rights, including religious. We can only hope that the legislative process in both these states is open to debate from several sectors of society and it has the best interests of all their citizens at heart. The line between trampling on a citizen’s rights and keeping them safe is a continual test of all democracies and governments, those as old as the US and those as young as these CA countries.

Also, from time to time, I will do a post on Karin’s Religion and Politics blog. Here’s my first.

Johannes F. Linn, a former World Bank vice president for Europe and Central Asia and current Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, recently made an extended visit to the region and has written a series of assessments on key issues facing the region. Today, I would like to discuss two pieces in this series in which Linn tackles CA’s water issues in great detail.

‘The Impending Water Crisis in Central Asia: An Immediate Threat‘: In this piece Linn layouts the region’s modern water history and current and coming water ‘crisis.’ On this site we have already discussed how the harsh winter combined with the current drought has cost the region’s energy and water sectors to be under great strain and how this has a dramatic impact on the region’s population, especially its poor. Linn argues that the region is in for a difficult year ahead, comparing its last major drought in 2000-2001, and that situation could quickly deteriorate into a ‘major humanitarian, economic and political crisis.’ This piece concentrates on Tajikistan’s dire situation, with Linn concerned that the upcoming winter may see seven million Tajik citizens with little or no electricity.

Linn highlights the complicated dance between the region’s countries, with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan upstream and therefore controlling nations and Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan as downstream nations depending on Kyrg and Tajik for water flows from the Amu Darya, Syr Darya, and Kambarata rivers and waterways. He reports that cross-border disputes along Tajik-Kyrg and Kyrg-Uzbek borders had flared up between March and May. The region’s states also failed to come to an agreement over water management during a June 27-28 conference in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, where Uzbekistan refused to accept Kyrg’s water discharge offer for the coming year.

The situation is very complicated and if you want to get a full picture of the region’s potential coming ‘crisis’ I suggest you read both of Linn’s pieces. So what should the region’s governments and international community do to stop or at least moderate these water/energy issues? Linn offers four steps for regional governments and the international community:

1. Conduct an ‘expert assessment’ of the Central Asian water adn energy shortage and its impact immediately. In other words, find out what the heck is going on.

2. Based on the above assessment, regional governments and international agencies should ‘plan emergency responses.’

3. The UN, international financial institutions, EU, China, Russia, and the US should use diplomatic mechanisms to make sure that the region’s water and energy problems do not develop into ‘open conflict.’ This is crucial.

4. An assessment of the region’s long-term prospects of water and energy balances, with an emphasis on the effect of climate change.

‘Water-Energy Links in Central Asia: A Long-Term Opportunity and Challenge‘: Linn’s second piece goes into more details about region’s dam and irrigation systems, specifically Tajikistan’s Rogun Dam.  Linn posits three options concerning the allocation of region’s transnational water resources:

A. Downstream countries (Uzbek, Kazak, Turkmen) could pay upstream countries (Kyrgf and Tajik) for the summer release of water stored in the winter, as was practiced in the Soviet-ruled days.

B.  Downstream countries could build dams and reservoirs on their territories to catch the waters released by the upstream countries during the winters for summer use.  Linn discusses how this has already been tried and has its setbacks.

C. (Linn’s optimal choice) Build dams and reservoirs along the same river or river system in sequence or as ‘cascades.’  Linn argues this would ‘allow the release of water from the higher reservoir for electricity generation in winter, but catching and storing the water in the subsequent reservoir for summer release.’

I am no expert on this subject, but Linn’s recommendations do seem to make sense, especially because he acknowledges the importance of creating a mechanism for the region’s states to work out these policies together, for if they cannot work together none of his recommendations would come to fruition.  In this regard, Linn suggests the creation of a ‘consortium of partners,’ which include all directly affected countries, regional powers (China and Russia), and international financial partners to help with funding the dams and power plants.

I will keep an eye on Linn and the Brookings Institution’s future pieces about important issues facing Central Asia.

I’m a couple days late, actually with the saturated media coverage it seems much longer, but Presidential candidate Barack Obama visited Afghanistan, meeting with US troops and the Afghan leadership. Reports stated that he made the trip to highlight the nation as the main front as the war on terror, more so than Iraq. I was pleased to hear that Obama visited, or at least flew over, the Pakistan-Afghan border where the insurgency is the strongest and where most NATO/US soldiers are dying. As I wrote last week this strategic area is of vital importance to US, regional, and international security and has been widely misunderstood by US officials and the media at large, so hopefully Obama was able to provide himself a clearer picture of the conflict by his visit (which I must say is about time, why did it take him this long to checkout the war-torn/vital nation? Well I’m at in this parantheses opinion piece, I have been also less than thrilled with Presidential candidate John McCain’s emphasis on Afghanistan, the public needs to know what the US/NATO/Afghan government is up against.) In positive news, Obama is reportedly going to ask Europe to ’shoulder more of the burden to help deal with global security threats’ in his upcoming Berlin speech. The global security threats definitely include Afghanistan and hopefully a fresh dialogue of NATO’s role can be opened.

In a reversal from the past few years, Afghanistan has taken over Iraq as the top international news story in the US. We can only hope this leads to more educated and effective policy prescriptions by politicians, backed by a knowledgeable populace. Here are a few worthwhile stories about the Afghan situation. I will not call this a link dump, there is just too much to cover for me to comment on them all, so let’s call it a ‘link gentle lay down’ instead.

Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida’ie asserted that Al Qaeda was for the most part leaving Iraq and that many of its members were heading to Afghanistan. The Ambassador stated, ‘’We have heard reports recently that many of the foreign fighters that were in Iraq have left, either back to their homeland or going to fight in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is now seeming to be more suitable for al-Qaida fighters.'’ Good news for Iraq, bad news for Afghanistan. That seems to be the trend lately.

Top Pentagon officials have recommended hundreds of more troops for the Afghan effort, but the official recommendation hasn’t been approved by Joint Chief of Staff Adm. Mullen or Defense Secretary Gates. Obama, McCain, and top commanders in Afghanistan have recommended about 10,000 more troops for the war.

Nancy Hatch Dupree, director of the Afghanistan Center at Kabul University, advocates greater support for education and literacy development in Afghanistan in her New York Times Op-Ed ‘Rebuilding Afghanistan, One Book at a Time‘. The Taliban have made schools, specifically ones that teach girls, a central target in their insurgency against the Afghan government.

Lastly, the New York Times Magazine has a major article about Afghanistan’s drug trade, titled ‘Is Afghanistan a Narco-State?’ I have not had a chance to read the whole article, but here is a shorter preview about a former US official who apparently was the main source for the article. I will try to summarize and analyze the article at a later date.

(Photo Source: New York Times)

Unfortunately before the Olympic Games could even begin in China, a terrorist event has occurred. Two bombs exploded on commuter buses in the city of Kunming, killing two and injuring several others. The Chinese police would not officially classify the attack as a terrorist incident, but that’s what the evidence points too. The Chinese government’s number one concern at the current moment is to have a successful, peaceful, and ‘quiet’ Olympic Games and stopping terrorist attacks and boisterous political protests tops this agenda.

The Chinese authorities have taken many measures, some of them basic and some severe, to intimidate and curb possible terrorist or political groups and individuals from ‘acting out’ during the games. For the Chinese government, the Uighur majority province of Xinjiang is a major concern and they have taken many police actions there to keep a lid on region’s independence movement, much like the situation in Tibet. The government announced that they arrested 82 suspected terrorists from the region and to board a plane in the area’s Urumqi Airport a passenger has to go through six checkpoints. The Chinese authorities are specifically worried about the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), an underground separatist organization based in several CA states and in Xinjiang, and recently performed an atrocious act to intimidate the nation’s populace. Thousands of Chinese students and workers were bused into a city square and were made to watch the execution of three convicted ETIM members who were said to have plotted attacks on the games.

The Washington Post has covered these stories very well and had this to say about the consequences of such harsh anti-terror/protest police methods;

“With the Games three weeks away, the precautions already have proved so sweeping that some observers question whether the sense of fellowship and fun that is supposed to accompany the Olympics can survive. Alongside the crackdown against Muslim extremists here in Xinjiang, for instance, have come confusing new visa restrictions, multiple roadside checkpoints, reinforced pat-downs at airports and subway stations, and raids on bars popular among foreigners. The result has been an atmosphere of coercion, not celebration.”

For the Chinese government though, a safe and stable Olympics may be acceptable enough;

“A safe Olympics is the biggest indicator of the success of the Games,” Xi Jinping, a member of the party’s elite Politburo Standing Committee and the senior official supervising preparations, said in a recent speech. “A safe Olympics is also the biggest indicator of the positive reflection of our nation’s image.”

When you’re watching the Olympics and everything seems to be going swimmingly, just remember that behind the tranquility could be quite the eruption.

(Photo/Map Source: The Washington Post)

Kazakhstan has found itself in the news lately, firstly, to no one’s surprise concerning energy resources, as the nation has begun building a natural gas pipeline connecting Central Asia to China and Gazprom’s recent announcement that they expect to double the price they pay for Central Asian gas (bad news for their Euro customers as Russia will not be the last entity to foot the bill). However, Kazakhstan’s leader, capital, and 2010 Chairmanship of the OSCE provide just a few other reasons for it to be in Central Asia’s spotlight.

Chairmanship of OSCE - OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb paid a visit to Astana last week and met with President Nazarbayev, leader of Senate, Foreign Minister Tazhin, and political party and civil society representatives. Stubb stated “Central Asia plays a key role in the OSCE, both as a region facing several challenges and as an active participant and supporter of the Organization’s plans to intensify engagement with Afghanistan.’ In reference to Kazak’s future chairmanship, Stubb stated the nation had a “unique chance to demonstrate its leadership by preparing carefully and by adopting and implementing reforms.” Now what could these reforms be, possibly democratic? Indeed, Stubb went on; “we welcome progress achieved so far, and hope to see swift continuation of reforms in fields such as media, elections and political parties.” Stubb went on to be more specific about these reforms, speaking of freedom of assembly, elections, religious freedom and religious associations, and ‘emphasized’ the ‘need for all political forces in society to have a chance to be heard.’ It would be a wonderful thing if Nazarbayev and the Kazak government could respond to these words and the 2010 chairmanship with real reform in these key sectors.

Ban Ki-Moon and Astana and Nazarbayev’s Birthday - UN General Secretary Ki-Moon spoke about Kazakhstan and its capitol and president’s birthday as well, but he left out the part about democracy. He expressed ‘admiration’ with the role the nation plays in the ‘provision of peace and stability’ in the region and gave his ‘warmest wishes’ to Astana’s 10 year jubilee and Nazarbayev’s birthday. Here is a quick history of the Kazak capitol. Nazarbayev has made quite the effort in modernizing the city in recent years and just made a speech detailing future improvements to what he calls ‘Central Asia’s first postindustrial city.’ In the speech, he discussed the development of high technological productions, service sectors, and the hope that the city will continue to become a regional business center. He concluded his speech, ‘Astana will be a city of high standards.’

One more bit of Kazak news: High level meetings have taken place recently between the leaders of Hungary and Kazakhstan as trade between the two states has considerably increased in recent years. A Hungarian diplomat stated that they consider Kazakhstan as a strategic partner.

That’s all folks, I hope I covered at least half of Kazak news.

Here are a few interesting items to keep you cool this weekend.

The Central Asia plus Japan Dialogue fourth representational level meeting took place in Tashkent on July 15. For Japan the meeting was ‘aimed to deepen the multifaceted interaction with Central Asia and Uzbekistan, provide for stability and regional security, enhance the trade and economic relations.’

The US Senate confirmed General Petraeus as the chief of Middle East and Central Asia Central Command last week. I guess this is kind of important, right? Petraeus replaces Admiral William Fallon, who stepped down a couple months ago (rumored to be because of policy differences with the Bush Administration regarding Iran policy), and will be replaced by Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno as the lead military man in Iraq.

Not sure how big this story may get, but Stephen Payne, a Houston businessman and GOP activist, is now under a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform investigation, probing whether he violated federal law by suggesting he could arrange access to top White House officials for Kyrg government officials, including President Akayev, in return for large donations to the Bush presidential library. There is a recorded video of Payne and Akayev meeting and discussing meetings with President Bush and VP Cheney in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars to the library.

I wrote a short exert about the passing of Kyrg author/ambassador Chinghiz Aitmatov, and now here’s a sad story from Eurasia.net discussing Aitmatov accomplishments and Kyrgyzstan’s lack of an ability to produce another influential writer or artist.

I am originally a California boy, but I had no idea the northern California city of Fremont had a significant Afghan population, which according to this interesting story, it does!  The piece discusses a local book club called ‘One Book, One Community‘ which recommended its readers check out ‘Three Cups of Tea,” the true story of Greg Mortenson’s travels and charity work in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Apparently, Mortenson was saved by a group of villagers in Pakistan after fallin g from K2 in the Himalyas, and decided to show his appreciation by building schools in remote parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan (now I just hope the Taliban doesn’t burn them all down). Anyways, the city of Fremont and even its mayor have taken on this mission and started donating to the cause themselves.

With what can only be called a victory for the Taliban, US forces abandoned their makeshift base in the Kunar Province, which was ambushed days ago. In this context, Today I want to bring to your attention two outstanding articles which provide a greater understanding of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border Pashtun people, culture, and security situation. Seth Jones, Thomas H. Johnson, and M. Chris Mason have written provocative pieces that both portray a security situation spiraling out of control. Though both articles mainly agree on the nature of the conflict and its dire consequences, they depart partly in their appraisal of the insurgency’s reliance on the Pashtun ethnic tribes and even more so policy recommendations.

1. Seth G. Jones. “The Rise of Afghanistan’s Insurgency: State Failure and Jihad.” International Security 32 4 (Spring 2008): 7-40.

2. Thomas H. Johnson and M. Chris Mason. “No Sign until the Burst of Fire: Understanding the Pakistan-Afghanistan Frontier.” International Security 32 4 (Spring 2008): 41-77.

Seth Jones argues in The Rise of Afghanistan’s Insurgency: State Failure and Jihad that the Afghanistan insurgency was not a creature of ethnic grievances or greed. He argues that though the insurgency is largely led by border land Pashtuns, there are segments of the ethnic group that do not support the Taliban and the current Afghan government is led by a Pashtun, Karzai and has a rather balanced ethnic representation. Regarding greed, mainly the growing and selling of narcotics as a reason behind the insurgency, Jones claims that the evidence shows that the increase in the drug trade was a result of the insurgency, not a precondition to it.

Jones instead argues that the ongoing insurgency was caused by a collapse of governance and the strength of the Taliban and its supporters’s ideology. Concerning the Afghan government’s failure, Jones emphasizes its lack of ability to provide essential services and adequate security to all parts of the country, especially the rural areas near the Pakistan border. He goes into greater detail discussing how the lack of legitimate local police and army forces, along with too few NATO forces, led to communities having to either rely on the Taliban for protection or being subjugated by them. In regards to Ideology, Jones describes insurgent groups, such as the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hizb-i Islami as being motivated by an extremist interpretation of Sunni Islam, where a Muslim’s primary obligation and loyalty are to his/her religion and that it is a ’sacred right’ and obligation to wage Jihad to protect the Muslims of any country. Jones also has harsh words, as will Johnson and Mason, for Pakistan’s government and policies in regards to the tribal areas and the Taliban, pretty much acknowledging their direct support for the insurgents.

So what does Jones suggest the US, Afghan, and Pakistan governments do to stop the insurgency? Jones believes the Afghan central government needs to extend its presence into the nation’s rural areas and provide them essential services, such as electricity. He then advocates an increase in the number and quality of police and army forces, including more NATO forces. Lastly, he asserts that the Pakistani government needs to start clamping down on insurgent leaders in its own territory and argues that the US needs to push them harder and harder until results can be concretely seen.

Thomas Johnson and Chris Mason’s No Sign until the Burst of Fire: Understanding the Pakistan-Afghanistan Frontier takes an in-depth look into the Pashtun people’s history and culture and paints a very dark picture of the region’s current, ‘chaotic’ state. Johnson and Mason (for now on JM) begin by differentiating between the Pashtun people and their geographic, tribal neighbors and come to the conclusion that it is only the Pashtun tribes who ‘have ever demonstrated an interest in the type of Jihad being waged by the Taliban.’ JM go on to give a short history of the Pashtun people, emphasizing times when a foreign force tried to subjugate them under another form of rule, the British, Soviets, Pakistan Government, and now NATO forces. They provide a thorough look into the complicated culture and way of order for the Pashtuns, called Pashtunwali, a system too complex for me to summarize on these pages. The important factor JM describe about Pashtunwali is its effect on current geo-strategic situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan today. JM call the Pashtuns ‘perfect insurgents,’ and quotes a Pashtun elder talking to a British official in 1809; “We are content with discord, we are content with alarms, we are content with blood…we will never be content with a master.”

It is with this viewpoint, that Johnson and Mason call the current US/NATO strategy a ‘bankrupt approach’ and ‘precisely the wrong answer to apply to a highly developed culture in which ‘central government’ is anathema and reaction to it is insurgency.” For the US and world security the situation becomes darker, as JM provocatively explain that the Pashtun culture and people, though strongly resistant to outside social and governmental change, have been proven to be susceptible to religious extremist movements and that this has and may have tragic consequences. JM blame the US, through the CIA, Pakistan, mainly the ISI, and Saudi bankrolling in the 1980’s onward for the marriage of extremist Islam and Pashtun culture. The US/Pakistan/Saudi policy was to stop the Soviet advance in Afghanistan in any way possible and JM assert that the policy, especially Pakistan’s so-called ’social experiment’ to replace ethnic identity with religious, therefore matching the rest of the nation, ’spun it out of control.’ As one can see from the dramatic increase in suicide attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the battles between Pashtun tribes and tribal leaders, the Red Mosque incident, and the influx of foreign fighters from the Middle East and Central Asia.

The consequences of this ‘monster’ are tremendously dangerous for the US and the world, argue JM, and one must agree to a large extent. After all, the attacks on 9/11, London subways, and Madrid train bombings ‘were planned and trained for’ in the region. JM argue that the Pakistan government can no longer contain, let alone suppress, this insurgency. JM predict for the short-term the continued destabilization of southern Afghanistan, spread of the Taliban insurgency, and the further faltering of Pakistan’s democracy, and for the long-term, if left unchecked, ‘potentially devastating’ consequences for the US.

Well Mr. Johnson and Mr. Mason, what shall we do about this ‘monster’? The two scholars advocate a near complete reversal of current US, and Seth Jones’s recommendations, policy of spreading out security and governmental forces into the Pashtun territory. Instead they argue that in the short-term, we need to strengthen and rebuild the Pashtun tribal structures from the inside, take them back from religious extremism, and reduce the pressure on them from the outside. They want to ‘empower’ the tribal leaders and restore the traditional balance of power to their tribal system, in other words, forget about central government control. In the long-term, JM suggest bringing rapid improvements into the everyday lives of the Pashtun people; health care, education. Regarding Pakistan government’s role, they advocate ’strong and consistent’ military action when required, not ‘half-hearted’ measures which the Pashtun people see through. (though this seems to contradict their proposal for US/NATO forces, but it is true that Pakistan’s government does need to show some grit and muscle to the tribal areas in order to keep the country cohesive). Like Jones, JM also believe the US needs to probe a lot harder into the ISI and Pakistan’s involvement with the insurgency and make sure things are getting done.

These two articles provide a lot of mental food to chew on. Whether one agrees with their assessment of the situation, policy recommendations, or scholarly frameworks, one must admit that they bring to the forefront important cultural/ethnic aspects to this conflict which are not widely discussed by the US government, let alone the media. This is a tremendously complicated and dangerous conflict, with many possible outcomes, and to make effective policy we need to know what we’re up against.

If you would like to learn more about the Pashtun’s history with foreign entities’ attempts to subjugate them under a form of central government, google Ty L. Groh’s (Thomas H. Johnson’s pupil) ‘Ungoverned Spaces: The Challenges of Governing Tribal Societies.’