Afghanistan and Central Asia

In an incident that looks like it could be linked to two stories recently discussed on this blog, Russia’s energy policy in Central Asia and Islamic militant groups based in the region, a 20-mile section of a natural gas pipeline, which travels from western Kazakhstan into Russian territory, was shut down late yesterday after an explosion damaged the line.  There were no reported casualties or injuries and Russia nor Gazprom has commented on the incident just yet.  There is no word about what caused the blast and no one has claimed responsibility.  Terrorist and militant groups have attacked pipelines in nearby Pakistan and Nigeria on a regular basis.  It is pure speculation that I linked the region’s Islamic groups to this incident and I will keep tabs on any further developments.

Freedom House put two new reports out in June of interest: Nations in Transit 2008 Annual Report and Supporting Freedom’s Advocates?: An Analysis of the Bush Administration FY2008 Budget Request for Democracy and Human Rights (Follow the link down the page and download the pdf under ‘Past Reports’) These reports are linked in an unfortunate way, the decreasingly open and democratic nature of Central Asia’s regime is key to both of them.

The Nations in Transit report ‘measures progress and setbacks in democratization in 29 countries and administrative areas from Central Europe to the Eurasian region of the Former Soviet Union.’ In its overall analysis of the former Soviet States, specifically in Central Asia, the report stated; ‘In distinct contrast to the trajectories of the other regions, the former Soviet Union has moved toward a more deeply anchored authoritarian, democratic accountability is an ever-scarcer commodity.’ Dierdre Tynan of Eurasianet.org gives an overview and analysis of the report’s findings here.

The Transit report grades each country from 1-7, with 1 being the most free, on 8 different categories and then assigns a overall score. The categories are: 1. Electoral Process 2. Civil Society 3. Independent Media 4. Governance 5. National Democratic Governance 6. Local Democratic Governance 7. Judicial Framework and Independence 8. Corruption. In a sadly similar formula to last year’s Freedom of the World rankings for Central Asia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan’s scores could hardly get lower, ranking near the bottom of the world, 6.93 and 6.86 disrespectfully. Kyrgyzstan received the best score in the region, 5.93, with Freedom House calling its 2005 upheaval now a time of ‘lost promise.’ Tajikistan’s score worsened from 5.96 to 6.07, with Freedom House stating that ‘justice is bought and sold’ in the nation.

Concerning the analysis of the Bush Administration’s FY2009 Budget Request for Democracy and Human Rights, Deirdre Tynan also wrote up another overview and critique (I haven’t had time yet to read FH whole report). Tynan reports that FH is disappointed in the President’s proposed budget for two critical reasons; 1. A lack of transparency as to where exactly the money where go, for instance to help civil society, rule of law? 2. Though the budget request increased overall, funds for most Central Asian states fell. The report argues that the US government needs to put more funds in developing the civil society of the region, particularly Kazakhstan, and has harsh words for Russia’s presence in the region, calling it a ‘negative influence over its former Soviet neighbors’ and as sliding evermore ‘towards increased autocracy.’ Freedom House leaves out hope that Congress will put the money back in when they have an opportunity to appropriate funds.

I couldn’t agree more with Freedom House about greater transparency in the appropriation of these funds, we should know where and to whom they are going. And I am more than sympathetic to their promotion of greater aid to support Central Asia’s civil society, independent media, and promotion of the rule of law and free and fair elections, but there are indeed strategic elements to consider, such as energy supplies and the fact that we need to work with these authoritative leaders at time on issues such as Afghanistan’s security. To leaders like, Islam Karimov, Berdymukhamedov, and Nazarbayev this money is aimed at their removal from power and that can’t sit too well, not to mention that China and Russia both see it as an affront to their regional interests and influence.

However, in the end, these are two informative, important, and brave reports by Freedom House.

Two interconnected, disturbing trends concerning Islamic militants from Central Asia committing violent and terrorist acts in and around the Afghanistan/Pakistan border are becoming more visible by the day. The first is the report from unidentified two US senior military officials based in the Middle East that Al Qaeda has stepped up its recruitment in Central Asia in the past two years and has found success recruiting children.

CBS News reported on this late last week and stated that Al Qaeda and other militant groups in Pakistan’s tribal areas have had success bringing in new, younger members to replace their casulties. Last May, a Pakistani military official showed CBS a video of young boy, possibly 12, chopping off the head of a middle-aged tribal man who they accused of being an American spy. The video below shows militant/terrorist training of children in Iraq:

The two US military officials assert that Al Qaeda and Taliban-associated groups were recruiting in Central Asian states, mainly Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, because there was ‘too much pressure’ on them in the Afghan/Pak border by US and international forces. One official stated that there was ‘one big advantage’ to recruiting in CA, ‘there is less focus by the US.’ The officials believe that there have been hundreds of cases of successful recruiting of Central Asian boys in the past two years.

Not all the militants coming from Central Asia to the Afghan/Pakistan war front are boys or recruits. In another disturbing trend, the Pakistani government has acknowledged the increasing presence of members of Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) in their border lands. Prime Minister Gilani confirmed reports that there are hundreds of IMU militants ‘holed up’ in Pakistin’s tribal belt committing violence against US/NATO/Afghan forces and within Pakistan’s tribal groups as well. The IMU have been strongly linked to Al Qaeda and the Taliban and there have even been reports that the group has picked a fight with certain local Pashtun tribes, assassinating tribal leaders loyal to the Pakistani government. Experts believe that there may be as many as 500 IMU militants around the border.

At the moment, the Pakistani government seems to have a hands-off approach to the foreigners, hoping the local Pashtun tribes will send them packing. Unfortunately, some of these tribes, like ones led by militant leader Baitullah Mehsud, find the IMU militants as allies in their fight against the Pakistani and US/Afghani governments. Lastly, here is a great analysis comparing the IMU and a similar Islamic militant group also based out of Uzbekistan, Islamic Jihad Union. It also discusses the IMU, and for that matter the IJU’s, presence in Afghan/Pak border area and the groups recent use of suicide bombing as a major tool in their arsenal. The report acknowledges the importance of Uzbekistan’s oppressive government as a cause of IMU and IJU’s birth and existence and how the Karimov regime in turn uses their presence to further tighten his leadership and power in order to defend his nation’s national security and safety. The analysis is told from a European perspective and charts these two militant groups recent past and possible futures.

In the next few days, I will discuss more deeply the tribal politics around the Afghan/Pakistan border that have now become one of the most dangerous and important security situations for the entire globe, as the most recent Taliban attack on a US base in Kunar Province, killing 9 American soldiers, attests.

On Friday, we discussed Russian President Medvedev’s recent three nation visit to Central Asia, a visit that seemingly had one thing on its mind; gas and oil. A couple weeks ago, EU representatives made their second major stopover in a matter of months to Turkmenistan to discuss energy, specifically gas reserves for the Nabucco pipeline which would circumvent Russian territory and land space, and trade, basically getting Turkmenistan into the WTO. However, just by taking a glance at the EU’s first annual Progress Report of their 2007-2013 EU Strategy for Central Asia, one can see that the EU is interested in more than just oil/gas/trade. Human Rights issues dot the document and EU perspectives on their role in the region.

The Report stated 5 Goals for the EU-Central Asian Strategy:

1. Promotion of Human Rights and Democratization

2. Enhancement of Education

3. Increasing the Rule of Law

4. Promote Regional Integration in the areas of environment and water

5. Coordination on Border and Drug Trafficking Management

Here is an analysis of the EU-Central Asian Strategy of the its 1-year progress report by Eurasia Daily and a local one by Kazinform. The Eurasia Daily quotes the EU report’s analysis of its accomplishments, calling them ‘encouraging’ and that ‘after only one year, a new quality of cooperation has evolved between Central Asia and the EU.’ Concerning the sticky issue of human rights promotion, the report asserted that all 5 CA states were willing to commit to the human rights dialogue. The Eurasia Daily analysis of the report also acknowledges the Strategy’s critics, some who argue that the overly ideological (idealistic?) approach the group takes with the region’s authoritative states is excessive, and others who instead assert that the EU plays too much realpolitik in region, ignoring human rights and democracy issues in order to secure energy resources and strategic interests. Here are two voices who agree with latter assertion: Danish journalist and political scientist Michael Andersen and Cornelius Graubner at the Central Asian-Caucacus Institute.

Like all things in domestic and international politics, the truth is somewhere in the middle. There is no doubt in my mind that the EU’s belief and policy’s in regards to human rights and democracy promotion are genuine. Putting a liberal bent on geopolitical policies in a region without a history of such ideals is a challenging endeavor to say the least. Europe desires relief from one autocratic energy ruler, Russia, and to accomplish this they need to deal with other autocratic rulers. But unlike Russia and China, the EU blatantly advocates and concretely promotes human rights and democracy in the region to go along with its material interests. This can be exemplified by a recent visit to CA by the German Commissioner of Human Rights. The Commissioner was due to speak and listen to civil society and opposition groups in several nations. This small visit by a ‘Commissioner’ may not be as significant or visible as an oil/gas deal, such as Nabucco, but it has an affect, and hopefully this ripples and ripples throughout the region.

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has made his second visit to Central Asia, this time stopping by Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan for the second time. Gas was apparently the only thing on the diplomatic menu. Medvedev and his Gazprom officials are wary of European and Chinese influence and engagement in the region’s energy resources, a sphere Russia has dominated for years, and this trip’s purpose appears to keep that monopoly intact.

Medvedev first went to Baku, Azerbaijan and reportedly told the nation that it was willing to buy up all of its Caspian Sea and land gas to keep it from heading to Europe via the BTC pipeline already functioning, or the Trans-Caspian and Nabucco pipelines in discussions right now. This would be a tall order for Medvedev to accomplish, as Azerbaijan has been courted by the West and strategically faced that way for some years now.

Immediately after this visit the Russian president visited Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan before heading off to the G-8 summit. Russia/Gazprom already dominate gas flow from these two states, but it faces growing competition from Europe and China and therefore wants to solidify its position. Last December, Russia and these two states agreed to build a new pipeline a while later Russia agreed to up its price for their energy resources, both moves to hurt Europe/China’s chances of getting in ‘on the game.’ The purpose of this recent visit also appears to be for Russia to buy up as much of the two nation’s gas as possible in order to stifle any deals the states would make with the EU/China and India for that matter. Russia’s energy policy is not one of just paranoia, as China has just announced the start of construction of a huge, 30 billion cubic meter natural gas pipeline transversing from Turkmenistan, through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, and ending in its own Xinjiang Province and EU representatives are in serious talks with Turkmen officials about the Trans-Caspian and Nabucco pipelines.

(Photo: Medvedev with Azerbaijan President Aliyev: Source Asianews.it)

The battle for power, and political influence which begets it, is as old as human civilization.  Societies and States are not usually left wanting for people who want to be ‘in charge’ or ‘take power.’  However, how this is done, as in the process of acquiring and maintaining political power, depends greatly from one location to another and from one political system to another.  For instance, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and many others very much desired to be the next President of the United States and they competed for this position within the American electoral system, which for all its ills and discrepancies, is rather democratic and fair.

On the contrary, the Central Asian states of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and to a lesser extent Kyrgyzstan all have a political process that is far from fair and is constantly manipulated by the powers that be.  A few weeks ago I discussed Tajik’s political/governmental problems and this included the mysterious disappearance of Hasan Sadulloev, President Rahmon’s brother-in-law and powerful businessman.  It appears Sadulloev had presidential ambitions and this led to his strange vanishing.

According to a report by Eurasianet’s Farangis Najibullah, the Sadulloev incident is far from abnormal in Central Asian domestic politics.  Najibullah discusses the similar case of Rakhat Aliev in Kazakhstan, a former son-in-law to President Nazarbayev, who was charged with kidnapping, murder, and conspiracy to overthrow the government.  Aliev is now out of the country and faces a long prison sentence if he ever returns home.

Exile, prison, or death await those who threaten the political power of Central Asian leaders.  One should not be surprised by this unfortunately, as these governments are only accountable to themselves and their hold on power.  Even longstanding liberal democracies have their flaws, but they offer their citizens a chance to vet and have a voice in their next leader, something sadly most Central Asian citizens do not.

Najibullah ends her article on a hopeful note, stating that such corrupt stories as Sadulloev and Aliev’s, may continue to frustrate a population which is hungry, unemployed, and dissatisfied with its government and that this may one day lead to change.  He quotes a university professor in Osh, Kyrgyzstan; “It was presidential family members’ greed that brought Askar Akaev’s {former Kyrg President} demise, and it’s not impossible that the same scenario can be repeated in Kyrgyzstan and elsewhere in Central Asia any day.”

Today I have several stories to treat you to; some old, some new, some interesting, some bor…well you get the idea.

• Last March, Turkmen President Berdymukhamedov announced his country’s second military doctrine. The change appears to be in accord with Turkmenistan’s recent more open diplomatic and international posture, a strong departure from its recent isolationist past. Though one must not expect too much change too soon, as Berdymukhamedov stated that the nation’s military doctrine will ’still be based on permanent neutrality of the state and the acknowledgment that necessary levels of defense capability must be maintained.’
• Co-Chair Alcee Hastings on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) and a bipartisan Congressional delegation, led by Senator Ben Cardin, was the largest ever diplomatic delegation to visit Kazakhstan. The attendees discussed Kazak’s 2010 OSCE Chairmanship as well as energy, igration, security, religious freedom and women’s rights. Here’s a telling and hopeful quote from Chair Hastings; “I think it will be extremely successful. The reason is that Kazakhstan is the first Central Asian country to chair. The simple fact that I believe - this will help Kazakhstan and this will help others in Central Asia and by the time that they finish their chair they will have learned a lot and that will be implemented here, that will benefit the people of both sides and reform elections and human rights here in this country.” It is much too early to tell how the Chairmanship will help open up Kazak or the CA states’ governments, but this particular delegation seemed hopeful and they may have possibly laid down some groundwork to hold the Kazak government accountable in its claims of transparency and allowance of individual freedoms.
• Pakistan’s new Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani stated that ‘foreign elements’ from the CA region were behind the latest unrest in his country’s tribal belt, aka the Pashtun-majority Federal Administrated Tribal Areas. Gilani gave no evidence to back up his claim. He also announced his government was adopting a 3-pronged strategy to bring peace and stability to the tribal areas; 1. Political Dialogue 2. Development of the area 3. Use of violence as a ‘last resort.’ Seems like the same old carrot and the stick policy.
• Paris’s Luxemburg palace held a scientific conference titled ‘Central Asia facing Globalization’ this past month. The event featured regional experts and local and international diplomats.
• Lastly, Mongolia is not an ‘official’ part of this blogs Central Asian theme, but it is an important regional country nonetheless. It is a democratic state and US ally sandwiched between the authoritarian and strong great powers of Russia and China and has a historical legacy and connections to nearly all the CA states. Here is a quick ‘Five Facts’ about the Asia’s landlocked giant.

Lately there has been much talk on this blog and the FPA site about NATO and its role in Afghanistan, and rightly so, but it has just been simply too long since I have talked about the ‘other’ regional alliance with influence in Central Asia, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The Asia Times wrote a short analytical piece updating the groups actions and prospects and arguing that the SCO is growing in strength and influence while NATO is becoming weak and irrelevant.

The articles analysis of SCO’s motives, mainly curbing the US/NATO encroachments in CA, anti-missile system and expansion in Eastern Europe, and ‘unilateralism’ are mainly spot on, but the author’s judgements of the groups capabilities, and NATO’s lack there of, are largely mistaken. It is true that the SCO has brought Russia and China closer together, but the possibility that the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which contains many CA states, may merge, as the author suggests, is very unlikely. As I have argued before, suspicions and competition between Russia and China just run to high. The author’s other major claim, NATO in trouble, can also be challenged on many fronts. NATO is struggling in its first 21st century war, but just the fact that is fighting a battle outside of its European homeland suggests an alliance with tremendous capabilities and reach. NATO’s fight for Afghanistan’s current government and against the Taliban insurgency has had setbacks, as evidenced by today’s tragic suicide bombing in front of India’s embassy in Kabul, but its members do seem committed to the mission. On the other hand, it is nearly impossible to imagine the SCO or the CSTO organizing and performing such a campaign. The SCO’s potential is great, this is true, but we must keep our analyses grounded and not up in the heavens.

Kazakhstan/Regional Transportation

Recently we discussed a new railway, funded by the World Bank, that would stretch from Kazakhstan’s eastern border with China all the way to Europe. In addition to this, Pakistan, China, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan have signed a Quadrilateral Transit Agreement on building up the Karakuram Highway, an alternative route through CA starting from China. Secondly, new bounded warehouses and an intermodal container terminal in Kazakhstan’s China border will be built to connect rail freight between China and Europe. The Soyuztranslink hub will be in the town of Khorgos and is due to be completed in 2010. Clearly China’s economic power and its influence in Central Asia and Europe can be visually seen by these infrastructure projects.

Lastly, Happy Belated Birthday America

Ahmed Rashid a Pakistani journalist/author has a new book called ‘Descent into Chaos: The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia.’ I have not read the book yet, but here is a review by Philip Bowring and an interview with the Rashid by Radio Free Europe correspondent Abubakar Siddique.

Rashid aims his criticism for the ‘failures’ to stabilize and implant democracy in Afghanistan and beyond on the Bush Administration and Pakistan’s President Musharraf and his ISI intelligence agency. In the interview he lays out three major mistakes by the Bush Administration: 1. The major distraction and pulling of resources for the war in Iraq 2. A lack of an effective plan to rebuild and reconstruct the Afghan nation 3. No long term plan as to how to dismantle and defeat the Taliban. Just a couple days ago the New York Times ran a major articles about the US failures in Afghanistan and how this was currently leading to a Al Qaeda and Taliban resurgence.

Rashid is also reportedly very critical of US support of Musharraf, support of Afghan warlords, and uncomprehensive narcotics plan. Concerning the Taliban’s resurgence, Rashid states ‘I wouldn’t say it’s winning. But it’s certainly showing a huge capacity to mount ever more sophisticated attacks.’ In the interview Rashid also voices concern over Afghan President Karzai’s ability to win and even hold the upcoming election, even stating ‘I don’t think the country can afford an election…’ The review mentions that the ‘Descent into Chaos’ also explores how the instability and political happenings in Afghan/Pakistan have effected the smaller Central Asian states, but I am sorry I do not have more details. Here is the part of the interview where he addressed Central Asian states movement, or lack there of, toward democratic governance;

RFE/RL: Finally, given the discontent with authoritarian rule in Central Asia: do you see it moving towards a democratic transition in the near future?

Rashid: Well, there is a lot of progress in some areas of Central Asia. But, by and large, the leaders are still dictatorial, they are authoritarian. The expected political and economic reforms that should have been carried out after 9/11 and which — I think, the people of Central Asia were hoping would be carried out — was never done.
So we really do have quite a grim situation in Central Asia. And of course, in midst of this, you have much worse poverty than ever before. You have much greater repression and you really don’t have any steps forward as far as the democratization is concerned.

Rashid comes across as a very intelligent and thoughtful journalist and political and geopolitical observer, but it is much easier to criticize policy than make it and implement it. The Bush Administration clearly took some of its eye off the ball and the world is paying for that right now, but as history has shown us, the Pashtun-led Taliban will not go down easy nor is it ever simple to foment or build democracy where it never existed before. I put this up about a week ago, but here are some statements by the US State Department regarding the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is in many ways a dire situation, proven by the fact that more US and coalition troops died in Afghanistan this June than in any other month since 2001, but as I have said before, definitely something worth fighting for.

(Photo: New York Times)

The region of Central Asia is home to several functioning and capable radical terrorist groups. Just last May, Interpol rounded up 176 terrorist suspects in Europe from 19 countries, and unfortunately all 5 major CA states were represented. French authorities also announced the arrest of 10 other suspects for financing Islamic terrorist groups, including the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU).

Speaking of IMU, Turkish Weekly released their ‘Country Reports on Terrorism 2007: South and Central Asia Overview,’ which provides their overall analysis of the region’s terrorist situation and describes Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan’s situation in-depth. The report does a solid job going over active terrorist groups, terrorist incidents throughout the past year, and US/CA state security cooperation to counter terrorism in Afghanistan and in each respective CA state. The report is very ‘matter of fact’ but it does offer one policy prescription or symptom of why terrorism exists and how it can be curbed in the region; they argue that widespread poverty and government repression, especially of religious groups, has helped create an environment for breeding terrorist elements.

The Turkish Weekly report discusses a few instances where American interests were directly targeted for terrorist acts by CA Islamic terrorist groups, specifically 2004 Islamic Jihad Group’s suicide bombing at the US Embassy in Tashkent. But in reading the report one gets the impression that these groups are mainly after disrupting and overthrowing their CA state autocrats, Matthew Crosston of The Middle East Review of International Affairs believes this is dangerous thing to believe and rely on. He writes an in-depth article on the Ferghana Valley radical Islamist terrorist group Hizb al-Tahrir (HT) and argues that the group has aims that go beyond the Valley and hope to reach US interests where ever they lie. His analysis and breakdown of HT’s ideology and purpose is well-researched and thought-out. Crosston believes that the groups beliefs and aims, which he describes as similar to Bin Ladin’s, are completely contrary to the US’s and that there will butt heads sooner or later. How should the US combat this group and others like it in CA one might ask? Crosston is highly critical of the current US policy, which he believes just overlooks political and religious repression in order to secure short term gains in Afghanistan and regional security. He asserts ‘The problem is that it {US} does not attempt to make its voice heard on these issues {democratic rights in CA}. Instead, issues of security and cooperation in assisting in the global war against terror have taken sole priority.’ In the long term, Crosston argues that this type of policy will come back to haunt the US.

What do you think about all this? Are the HT and other CA based terrorist groups capable of, and do they even really desire to, hurt the US and its interests? Is the current US policy in the region to favorable to security concerns over democracy promotion? Does poverty and religious/political suppression create terrorist or are other factors at play, religious ideals for instance?