McCain, Russia, and Central Asian Geopolitics
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?
July 30th, 2008 at 10:53 am
First, I think McCain has a well known plan for a “League of Democracies.” Like the Heritage Foundation, he hates the United Nations, but doesn’t have a plan to get rid of it. The word is that by pushing Russia out of the G-8, he will turn that once-important group into the rump of his dreamed-of LoD.
Shhh! Don’t tell anyone, but nothing is stopping us from forming a “party” or “caucus” of Representative Democracies in the United Nations General Assembly! It’s true! Who gets to be in it, of course, is another matter. I chuckle thinking of trying to form an “American caucus” (we decide unilaterally who gets to join) at this time.
As for Russia, we are idiots to alienate them. Realist-speaking, they still have thousands of nukes. Economically speaking, they are a major energy supplier. And I imagine it will increase the strength of appeals to Russians to stand together, and overlook de-democratization, with finger-pointing about how the world is moving against them.
As for why, I have long suspected that America had a massive anti-Soviet program which it couldn’t dismantle overnight. Well placed spies and assets, ones that it wouldn’t harm U.S. interests to continue to exercise, using its power and denude Russia of its former empire. My attitude is more of the “live and let live” tempered with the “if they start it, we finish it” type, and, if correct about my suspicions, I am non-plussed.
I also think Tajikistan’s move towards Afghanistan and Iran is _exactly_ in line with my own, mostly fleshed out theory of language and conflict, a grand theory of human history, which suggests that language is the fundamental factor in the modern world. Unlike Kazakh, Uzbek, Turkmen or Kirghiz, the Tajik language is from the Iranian family, as is the Pashto language of Hamid Karzai (and the Taliban). However, the theory is undercut a bit because the other four languages aren’t Slavic, but Turkic. It is usually at the level of government, so, perhaps Tajikistan’s leader speaks Tajiki, while we know Turkmenbashi and Nayarbayev are Soviet holdovers, so obviously fluent in Russian, and who are used to managing their countries through that language. Or perhaps I’m just too eager to see the pattern everywhere.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Goodmorning,
my thumbs up for the interesting blog.
My opinion is a bit biased as I happen to respect Russia current international stand. Many bloggers and internauts do admire Russia out of a romantic and underdog effect. In my case I simply consider the point in which it was in 2002-4 and where it is now. It is simply seeking its interest, but its a rather honest interest of Progress. It is not following sectarian politics, Wahabbi ideology, predatory capitalism (well, less than many other countries in the 1st world). I wish every country to act so, instead US is sponsoring almost every country, group and movement that simply is at odds with Russia, and as its the case of finding an enemy of an established and enlighted “Empire”, you always find ethnic atavists or prophets of the closed society.
Now to Mc Cain proposal: kicking Russia out of G8 would be unfortunate. It would demonstrate how G8 is a political creature instead of a club of leading economies (or I should say “clusters”). The only real reason I might forsee to give Russia the door is that is not quite an industrialized Nation, as at the moment is relying on resources. In that case, EU, UK and US are not industriazied either, rather “informaticizied” and “tertiarized”.
Indeed the solution is just a matter of rationalization: EU is an established Economic subject and deserve to appear at G8 summits instead of the trojka France-Germany-Italy (moreover, this way also successful Spain and Netherlands could be comprised), so to leave some room to India, China, ASEAN (have we forgot the Asian Tigers?) and Korea.
One might say, once G8 overstretch, it loses capability of reaching an entente. Then, perhaps, instead of having a G8+5 it would be better a G5+8, so to have a congruous discussion between congruous demnocracies.
Sincerely
Leonardo B.