Continuing yesterday's discussion of the SCO's joint declaration being very neutral when it came to defending Russia's future and past actions in Georgia; What does this mean for Russia? What does this say about China?  And What does it show about the four Central Asian states in the group and their position in the world?  As I kept thinking about this ‘declaration’ and its timidity toward anything that would help Russia's world stance on the Georgian issue, the more I saw it as a great blow to their strategic and diplomatic standing.  Here was an autocratic friend, one with tremendously rising world power, who had backed Russia on US influence in CA, East European missile defense, the expansion of NATO, among other items, telling Russia to 'solve existing problems peacefully, through dialogue, and to make efforts facilitating reconciliation and talks.’  China, it appears, was not going to join this fight.  As was mentioned yesterday, China has their own separatists to worry about and do not desire confrontation with the West as they fear losing the economic engines that keep their nation humming.  But China's stance goes back further, to Deng Xiaoping's ‘peaceful’ or ‘quiet’ rise.  The discipline of the Chinese Communist Party to not get entangled in foreign affairs is amazingly consistent and has shown to be in most cases good policy (However it is not the policy and action of a true world power).

So Russia lost out on China's support, while surely they can garner the backing of their former satiellites and energy partners, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan?  But these four joined China in the neutral joint declaration, all failed to mention the Georgia conflict in their open statements, and ignoring Medvedev's request, none of them have recognised S. Ossetia or Abkhazia.  Here is a quote from Nikolay Petrrov, an expert in Russian politics with the Carnegie Moscow Center;

"It would have been very important to have gotten direct support from these states, which very closely work and depend on Russia, but Moscow didn't get any support aside from general statements," said Nikolay Petrov.  He added that the Central Asian states' refusal to overtly back Moscow was an indication of the "limits of Russia's influence."

China no doubt gave these states cover to disobey Moscow, but their interests in not alienating the US/West were also shown in this lack of action and defense of Russia.  In today's geopolitics, the CA states have more avenues to turn to for support and customers to sell to than just Moscow and this SCO action proves it.

So this morning, I expected to see Western editorials discussing Russia's growing isolation in this conflict, but instead I found, once again, numerous pieces about a New World Order and the Return of the Cold War.  But with the US remaining diplomatically strong, if in no other area, and the EU discussing sanctions, and the fact that only rogue regimes have voiced true support for Russian actions, one has to call into question the success of Georgian-Russia conflict for Moscow.  I’m not trying to say that the move was not a strategic success in many fronts, it was and I have discussed this, but its long term effects and gains appear to be in question.

Just what did Russia get out of this? We know they got to hurt, but maybe not finish off, their Georgian rival.  We know they have gained consternation and isolation from and in the world.  We know that all former Soviet states have grown more fearful and may become a bit more pliant to Moscow.   But we also know that Ukraine, Poland, and the CA states have other patrons and defenders in which to turn to.  Poland signed a missile/defense deal with the US days after the conflict and Kyrgyzstan has a US air base right next to the one they host Russia in as well.  China's power in the CA (as they have made yet another business deal), to Russia's chagrin, is strong and growing.   The EU, though strategically and militarily weak, has shown some resolve in making matters difficult for Russia to move ahead after this conflict.

So can the West feel a little bit more secure in their 21st century liberal, globalized world order?  Well Russia reminded us all that states do matter, military power does matter, strategic spheres do matter, but their growing isolation portrays a world that is no longer very comfortable with good old power politics, to Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev's chagrin.

(Photo Source: New York Times)

So the 8th annual Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit has begun.  The meeting started this morning in Dushanbe, Tajikistan (though China and Tajikistan started bilateral talks days before) and features the head of states of all six members (I wonder if President Hu Jintao will be wearing all of China's 51 gold medals?), top officials from the four Observer States of India, Iran (Ahmadinejad), Pakistan, and Mongolia, and a lot of political baggage from the Russian-Georgian conflict.  Also on the agenda are formalizing and streamlining the admission procedures (right now it must be a consensus), energy, transportation, security issues, and the combatting of terrorism and drug trafficking in the region.  The Summit should have some success in coordinating efforts in many of these spheres and it is likely the the group's Observer members presence and duties will become more defined, but I would not expect any major breakthroughs and that would include adding Iran, India, or Pakistan as an official member.

In the past couple days, I have scoured news resources looking for coverage of the Summit, and unfortunately, but as expected, a dearth was found in the Western media (Financial Times was the only major paper with a serious piece so far and Russia/CA expert Stephen Blank wrote another one), while in the East there were several articles.  And of course they took different views of the SCO's intentions and goals.  Stephen Blank, who works for the US War College, argued that Russia was coming back to a group of friends after its recent dust up in Georgia and that the Summit would turn into a ‘forum for America bashing.’  On the other hand, the Russian News & Information Agency emphasized the cooperation of its groups members in a positive and non-confrontational light, stating the 'sCO is not going to change the world.  It would be happy to cope with Central Asian problems.’

Now back to the SCO, and most importantly China's, view of Russia's incursion into Georgia and its recent recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states. Chinese foreign ministry spokesman stated just a day before the conference that ‘during the summit, the various countries’ leaders can within the framework of the agenda enunciate their shared positions on issues of interest to them, including South Ossetia as no exception.’  China has been very cautious, its number one foreign policy strategy, so far in its diplomatic gestures and statements regarding the conflict in the Caucasus's, mainly advocating a ‘peaceful conclusion,’ but would things be different with Medvedev's presence and with the cover of an SCO meeting?  Stephen Blank, in the aforementioned article, sure thinks so.  He outright predicted that the conflict would be high on the Summit's agenda and that ‘China will endorse Russia's actions in the Caucasus’ was a ‘foregone conclusion.’  He also believed Russia and the CA states would then give ‘unequivocal support’ for Beijing's aggressive campaign to end instability in the Uighur dominated Xinjiang Province.  Now I personally would not expect such a loud statement by the SCO or China, they are far too cautious and have their own separatist groups to watch over, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Taiwan, but I did think that Blank was on to something, but just too strongly stated.  It seems that Medvedev and Moscow would expect a sympathetic ear and voice at the meeting also.

Well, it appears Blank, Russia, and I (but remember just a little bit) was wrong.  Before the meeting, Medevedev discussed a ‘united’ SCO group, one that would send a 'strong signal’ to the West, and that its support of Russia in this instance and further expansion would "further growth of the authority of our organisation in the world arena."  As of this morning, Medevedev has not gotten what he wanted and Blank has not gotten what he predicted, and I, well let's just leave me out of this.  The SCO has already put out an official statement regarding the conflict and subsequent Russian recognition of the independent states.  Here it is:

"The SCO states express grave concern in connection with the recent tensions around the South Ossetian issue and urge the sides to solve existing problems peacefully, through dialogue, and to make efforts facilitating reconciliation and talks."

No recognition of the breakaway provinces as states.  No outright support of Russia's stance or against the West.  Just ‘concern’ and ‘dialogue’.   Now the Summit is just beginning so we should still have a wait and see approach, but this was not what Moscow was hoping for that's for sure.  I will keep you up to date about the rest of Summit's events and happenings, especially regarding provocative anti-West stances, the admission of new members (Iran?), and of course any more moves regarding the Caucasus conflict.

The world is getting better, in some ways slowly, in other ways fast. What I mean by ‘better’ is a more safe and prosperous life for the average world citizen. But the world is also a very challenging place, and ripe with conflict, even in our ‘postmodern’ liberal-democracy-led 21st century. Two cases stemming from Afghanistan, but also taking part just outside the US border, present a stark contrast to an ever improving world. They are the targeting of international aid workers for violence and terrorism and the false imprisonment of innocents in the war on terror. The blame can go around, and at times the lines can be blurry, but these two incidences are one thing, wrong.

Just over a week ago, Taliban forces killed three female educators and a driver with the International Rescue Committee. Was this an accident? Did the Taliban target them specifically? It was no accident, as the Taliban claimed the attack was in revenge for a NATO strike against an Afghan wedding party. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have outright stated that they will target the United Nations as ‘direct enemies aiming to change the fabric of Muslim society.’ Last December, 17 UN workers were killed and 40 others injured in an Al Qaeda suicide attack in Algeria. And we must never forget the tremendous attack against Vieira de Mello and his UN staff in Baghdad, killing him and 21 others. International aid workers and volunteers are increasingly being lumped in with Western governmental and military forces in targeted attacks by extremists.

Samantha Powers, a Harvard professor writing a book about de Mello, offers recommendations about how to stop or at least minimize these attacks, none of them inspiring. 1. No choice but reduce physical presence of aid workers, as even nationalizing the force has not proven to lessen the attacks; 80% of UN civilians killed in the last 15 years have been local staff. 2. UN nations must pay regular dues to provide security for humanitarian groups, no more voluntary payments. 3. Get more cooperation from host countries. Unfortunately most host countries are experiencing governance and security problems, that's why the humanitarian workers are likely there. Powers recommendations, if followed, could definitely assist the aid worker's security, but never completely. What is missing is a worldwide condemnation of this type of target. Where are the people standing up and saying 'tHIS IS NOT RIGHT!’? I’m about to discuss the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, a subject widely disparaged and protested, and in many ways rightly so, but where is the clamor against suicide attacks on humanitarian workers? Where is it?

An American-Afghani, Mahvish Rukhsana Khan, in 2005 volunteered to be an interpreter for Afghan prisoners in Guantanamo prison and has now written a book about her experiences there. The book goes deeper than that though, as she follows several of the released Afghans back to their homeland to find out how they were captured in the first place and how they are doing now. Khan writes, ‘I came to believe that many, perhaps even most, of the detainees were innocent men who’d been swept up by mistake.’ Khan mainly interpreted for Afghan prisoners who were caught in Pakistan by bounty hunters. This account leaves no doubt that in the fog of war the US picked up and imprisoned innocent Afghan citizens and caused them great grief and pain in numerous ways. I could sit here as a proud American and list several reasons why this was justified in the heat of war, but this would be wrong. Innocents are innocents. Though at times there will be wrongs, the US may mistakenly arrest a terrorist suspect who will be found to be innocent (and hopefully released as soon as possible) and humanitarian workers will be injured and killed by accident while in dangerous zones, but the outright targeting of innocents by Al Qaeda and the too loose approach of arrests by the US after 9/11 were wrong. The only difference is the US feels shame when it does wrong and works to correct its past, present, and future efforts, where is Al Qaeda's evil actions give them pride and are here to stay.

How closely related are these two crimes against humanity?  Why has there been a large decrying of Guantanamo Bay, but not as loud a one against these attacks?

Chinese President Hu Jintao visits Tajikistan and Turkmenistan

That's it. He’ll be visiting both states before and after the August 28th SCO summit in Dushanbe. It will be a Chinese leaders first visit to Turkmenistan in 13 years.

Good Friday, Friday Good. Today I want to take some time out and showcase some of the excellent work done by other FPA writers and bloggers that either directly or indirectly affect Central Asia, most involving the Georgia-Russia conflict.

FPA contributer Marco Vicenzino has written two solid analyses of a Reassertive Russia Part I, Part II. Vincenzino discusses Russia's agenda before and after the conflict and goes over possible US responses, much ado about nothing. He takes a realist perspective of the situation as is largely on point.

Joel Davis from the FPA blog US Role in the World discussed US options in the conflict.

Vadim Nikitin's Russia blog is a must-read resource on the recent conflict and Russia's role in other former Soviet States and in the world. He has covered reasons for the conflict, US media bias against Russia, Medvedev's popularity boost, to name just a few.

Two other blogs to check out covering the conflict are Mark Dillen's Caucasus and US-China Trade, which provides some analysis of China's view and response to the situation.

Karin Esposito of the Religion and Politics blog quickly analyzed the recent terror attacks in China's Xinjiang Province during the Olympics, discussing whether the movement is religiously motivated rather than politically desperate.

And for those who just can't get enough of Russia-Georgia analysis - Here are some of the more provocative editorials I have read, interestingly most of them take on a strong realist and deferential view of Russia's renewal, and I don't blame them as that is what the facts are the ground suggest, but surely this conflict was not a KO for US influence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.  NYT US Sees Much to Fear in a Hostile Russia, WSJ Russia Still a Hungry Empire, Washington Post Is Ossetia Essential?, Washington Post Russia's Flashback to 1968, The Brookings Institute's Johannes F. Linn, a Central Asian expert, War in Georgia- End of an Era, Beginning a New Cold War?, and here are a couple articles discussing the illiberal nature of this conflict, Slate's Christopher Hitchens South Ossetia Isn't Kosovo, and Trudy Rubin's There's No Excusing Russia's Attack.  Well I hope you find some of this interesting and thought-provoking.  Have a great weekend.

On July 22, just days before the Russian-Georgia conflict, US Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher spoke before the OSCE Helsinki Commission regarding Kazakhstan's democratic and human rights progress before their scheduled 2010 OSCE Chairmanship. Before we get into how the US views their progress so far, it's never a bad idea to go over official US policy in Central Asia and Kazakhstan specifically.

Boucher stated; ‘We support the development of fully sovereign, stable democratic nations, integrated in to the world economy and cooperating wit one another…to advance regional security and stability. We do not view Kazakhstan or any other Central Asian nation as a part of any external state's special sphere of influence (Georgia anyone?), and our relations are not based on competition with any other power.” It is interesting, but not surprising, to hear the contrast of China/Russia's rhetoric toward the CA, basically ‘foreign entities should leave these nations alone,’ to the US's 'these nations should be allowed to work with anyone they want.’ Each side is just trying to promote their own interests, but the US/EU include a democratic/human rights element, which is needless to say very important and as we saw in Georgia, potentially destabilizing and dangerous. Boucher went on to describe the US three main goals in their 'strategic relationship’ with Kazakhstan: 1. Advance democratic and market economic reforms 2. Fight terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and the proliferation of WMDs 3. Foster the development of CA's significant energy resources, supporting US companies.

OSCE Chairmanship Reforms

Boucher emphasized that the decision to grant Kazak the Chairmanship was ‘not one the US made quickly or easily’ and that the process was moved to 2010 to give the state enough time to implement democratic and liberal reforms regarding election laws, media rights, political party liberalization, and Kazak's concrete support of the OSCE's Human Dimension and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. So how are they doing so far? Overall, the US asserts that progress has been ‘uneven and slow’, but that the US/OSCE were putting the pressure on.

Election Law - The OSCE's Central Election Commission has been working with Kazak political parties, including the opposition, to make changes to the law and expects draft legislation to be ready by the end of this year.

Media Law - The government committed to reform their media law, especially regarding reducing criminal liability for defamation in the media and liberalizing registration procedures for all media outlets, and created a working group that has now begun work on new media legislation.

Political Parties - Opposition parties and NGO's have put forth many recommended proposals to liberalize the nation's laws and registration barriers, but the government has not yet engaged with the OSCE on legislation.

Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights - Unfortunately Kazakhstan has not yet begun to play a ‘proactive’ role in this OSCE Committee.

Boucher mentioned that the US was also pushing for overdue religious freedom reforms. Alas, not much progress seems to have been made (Anyone have evidence to the contrary?), but the fact that the US/EU/OSCE and NGOs are working with the Kazak government on these issues should make a difference, if only a small one. In light of the Georgian-Russian conflict, should the West be more careful in pushing reforms in Kazakhstan? The opposite? What measures or levers could the OSCE pull to get more progress in Kazakhstan regarding these reforms? If major progress is not shown, should the Chairmanship be revoked? What consequences would that have? Where is Kazakhstan heading toward as a nation/government? Toward the West? East? The answers to most of these are murky. In fact, just as Kazakhstan is moving toward ever so slightly democratic reforms, its government is extending its reach over its increasingly powerful energy sector, buying up companies and pushing around foreign investors in ways that remind one of Gazprom. What do these actions portend?

It's that time of year again. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization Annual Summit! The meeting will be held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan on August 28, and foreign ministers from all six of its member states have already concluded a meeting going over a few topics to be discussed at the larger summit. The group of ministers decided that no new members, not Iran, Pakistan, Mongolia, or India (all have Observer Status), will be enshrined, but that a SCO Dialogue Partners mechanism will be instituted to increase cooperation between the organization and these important neighbors. During last years meeting, the main topic of media/geopolitical debate was the appearance of Iran's President Ahmadinejad, who brought with him Iran's ‘right to have nuclear energy’ and his own bombastic style of speaking and railing against the US. Well, he's back for more. Iran will lose some spotlight this year, as Russia's actions in Georgia and China's Olympic spectacle will take center stage once again. Both dominating members of this alliance will come with their chests bursting.

The debate of the SCO's nature and actual power, and how these may affect US policy and influence in Central Asia, have been major topics since its existence in 2001. Is it a rival, partner, both? How well does it function? Does it provide benefits to its CA members or does it only provide a venue for China and Russia to dominate them? Well, the host of Summit, Tajik President Rahmon seems to be quite excited about the upcoming meeting and the SCO's accomplishments so far. “The SCO has demonstrated specific results in the years of its existence, and its future is cloudless.” Rahmon went on to discuss how important its relations with Russia and China were, which is indeed obviously true. The US State Department view of the SCO is not as glowing, but not fearful either, at least not in the words of Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia Evan A. Feigenbaum. He acknowledges that the US does not have a clear idea of what the SCO is and does, but is quick to assert that it ‘is no Warsaw Pact’ and that there are many shared interests between the US and the Organization's professed goals: border security, economic development, Afghanistan stability, and defeating radical terrorist elements. However, Feigenbaum draws a firm line when it comes to supporting the region's smaller states’ sovereign and independent rights to look in all ‘four directions of the compass’ for economic and strategic opportunities, i.e. he wants the states to be able to look and work with the West, not just be dominated by Russia or China.

A perennial concern for the growth of the SCO as a regional and international powerhouse is the relationship, or lack thereof, between Russia and China. The two have been getting along nicely in past years, and have used the SCO to work out many differences between the two Great Powers, especially regarding border demarcations. But man, oh man, do they have some fundamental differences, as any two large nations would who share an extensive border. In fact, they both desire to use the SCO to cooperate in CA, but also to get their individual interests in the region's resources further embedded. In many ways, its pipeline vs. pipeline and gas deal vs. gas deal between the two. But there have been very few times of crisis/conflict between the two growing powers and the SCO probably deserves some credit for this smooth management.

So how do you see the SCO changing, evolving in the recent geopolitical context? Are its motivations the same? Is its power the same? Does it help the CA states autocrats keep their hold on power? How will the recent Georgian-Russian conflict and the terrorist attacks in Xinjiang Province affect this year's meeting and future policies of the organization? What about the Observer States? What about them? Should they allow Iran in and receive energy help but diplomatic pain? Is there any chance in Nirvana that India might become a Full Member?

On a less geopolitically fun note, The Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) will have an important summit on September 25 featuring high level officials. Here is a short article discussing the organization's positive elements and some of its challenges in being an effective force for economic development in the region.

Two interrelated items today for your viewing pleasure.

Descent Into Chaos
We have already discussed Ahmed Rashid's new book Descent into Chaos: The US and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia, but in light of changing events, Musharraf's resignation (here is an editorial by Rashid about Musharraf's leaving), the worsening situation in Afghanistan, and especially in light of yesterday's post which questioned if the US/West were really up to the challenge of nation building Afghanistan, we should take another look. Here is a short BBC interview with Rashid and the New York Times Book Review of Descent. Rashid sees Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia as places lacking effective government controls, a dearth of opportunities for its citizens, bereft of democratic institutions and practices, and lastly, a region embedded with radical elements that pose a tremendous security risk. Basically, Chaos. Rashid has many people to blame for this, Bush, Clinton, Rumsfeld, Musharraf, Pakistan democratic leaders who filled their own coffers instead of the state's democratic institutions, the Kashmir conflict, just to name a few, but what I want to focus on is what to do now to stop this ‘chaos’ and create some form of stability. What is the US's role? Should it even have a role? Even with all his criticisms of the US's policies in the region, Rashid does not want us to go away. He advocates a greater military commitment and even more importantly a greater amount of US/West aid to help reconstruct Afghan's infrastructure to create 'some degree of economic security.’ He argues that the national programs, such as rebuilding schools and health clinics are having a positive effect, they just need more money and focus. This of course sounds viable and may indeed have positive effects on the nation's stability, but it is indeed tough to hear how bad things are, and to not feel ‘is this sacrifice in blood and treasure really worth it? Are we accomplishing anything long lasting?’ I believe the US/NATO presence is indeed a positive force in Afghanistan and the region as a whole, but I just want to layout just how difficult the situation is the world is facing in this troubled nation and region. There will be no quick fixes (like 2 more brigades).

China's Jihad?

Though things have settled down during Olympics, there has still been a decent amount of coverage of Uighur separatist/Islamic situation in China's Xinjiang Province. In fact, the view of Xinjiang as an ethnic situation, and one that should garner US/World attention and support like the Tibetans, or the view of the situation that sees Islamic radicals, related to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and therefore unsympathetic to the US, have been interesting to see. In the first week of the Olympics the coverage of the Uighurs was fairly positive, focusing on China's slow destruction and encroachment of their culture and land, but after the border patrol attack in Kashgar and the bombings of government and business buildings a few days later, I have starting to see articles more wary, and even combative, of what is happening. William Foreman of the AP wrote a rather balanced piece, but he definitely paints the Uighurs as supportive of the recent terror attacks against the Chinese government. Kathy Shaidle of FrontPageMagainze.com wrote a scathing piece about these ‘Islamic terrorists and their apologists,’ and brings up the whether the US can stomach working with an autocratic regime in Beijing to stop Islamic terrorism (yes, they already have, but to a marginal extent). Lastly, the Financial Times produced a thorough piece analyzing the extent of radicalism in the province, coming to the conclusion that the situation is rather nuanced, with not much evidence showcasing widespread support of violence, but also a people that are unhappy (though not all) with the Chinese government's role in their lives. Here is a quote that most accurately sums up the situation.

Prof Gladneya, of Pomona College in California, says evidence of sympathy for terrorist groups in Pakistan or elsewhere remains thin. "There has definitely been a rise in Islamic conservatism in Xinjiang," he says. "But I have not seen signs of real support for global jihad or for Islamic radicalism."

An interesting test to see how the US/world views the Uighur separatists compared to the Tibetan separatists would be to gage their reaction to a Turkish man who set himself on fire during a Uighur protest outside of the Chinese embassy in Ankara on the day of the Olympic Opening Ceremonies. Does this incident make one feel sympathetic, fearful, both?

(Photo Source: New York Times; Reuters)

For the past few months, the war in Afghanistan has been seen as the ‘Right War’ by the American politicians and media. John McCain and Barack Obama both have called for greater troop strength in the conflict and have shown unwavering support in the US/NATO mission there; to defeat the insurgency/Taliban and create a viable, strong, liberal democratic Afghan state. I myself have been a strong advocate of these as well. But I’ve also been troubled by what I believe is a lack of communication by the Bush administration, the presidential candidates, and the media to layout just how challenging this mission is the broader public. Defeating the Taliban on their hometurf, bringing federal government to the Pashtun areas, and setting up and solidifying a democratic and strong Afghan state are all tremendously ambitious goals. Goals that will take a great amount of sacrifice in Western aid, lives, and time. We need to continue to ask ourselves, is this worth it? (to cut to the chase I believe it is)

Bartle Breese Bull, editor of Prospect Magazine, brought up this issue and question in a recent editorial. His words; “But what are the real prospects for turning fractious, impoverished Afghanistan into an orderly and prosperous nation and a potential ally of the US? What true American interests are being insufficiently advanced or defended in its remote deserts and mountains? And even if these interests are really so broad, are they deliverable at an acceptable price? The answers to these questions put the wisdom of an Afghan surge into great question.” Bull proceeds to list four central American interests in Afghanistan (denying terrorists sanctuary, project American power in the region, support modernity in the global struggle for the Muslim world, and stop heroin exports) and comes to the conclusion that the West can accomplishes these with a maximum of 20,000 troops, strong intelligence, airbases, a strong Afghan army, and by aiding the Afghan government generously. Bull does not see Afghanistan in the same critical light as Bush, Obama, McCain, and most others do, calling the nation's global importance ‘negligible’ and a ‘backwater of the Muslim faith.’ Bull's recommendations and assertions are controversial, and I disagree with a great many of them, but he has helped deepen the debate as to what are our interests in the region and how much we are committed to accomplishing them. Will more troops help the situation, or in fact make it worse (as Bull points out, as the West's troops have increased in the conflict so has the Taliban's insurgency and bloodshed)? Do we know what victory will look like? Bull obviously views the situation through realist/American strategic interests eyes, and this misses the strides taken by Afghan society, such as girls now receiving schooling, and the possible impact a free, open Afghan government and society would have on the greater Central Asian region.

The US/NATO need to have firm answers to these basic questions; what are true interests, what will it take to accomplish them, and are willing to pay the costs?

Georgia

Here is the latest update on the ceasefire and Russia's possible circumventing of it.

I may have been too easy on the US/West policy toward Georgia leading up to the recent conflict in my earlier posts, so here are a couple critical articles: Gerhard Schroder, ‘Serious Mistakes by the West,’ Andrew Bacevich ‘Russia's Payback.’ Here is a piece from the London Times critiquing Europe's lack of clout and flimsy diplomacy. Lastly, National Defense University professor and Central Asian expert Eugene Rumer discusses how important it will be for the West to ease Russia back down from this conflict.

On this page, we have constantly debated between realist and idealist foreign policies regarding the West and Central Asia. The West's liberal/democratic rhetoric and policy of democracy promotion comes in stark contrast to Russia and China's movements throughout the world, and this is easily seen in Central Asia. In this same regard, we have discussed the rise of the authoritarian model as a challenge to the West's democratic/liberal world order. Russia's incursion into Georgia is the latest incident in the battle between Authoritarian and Democratic/Liberal leadership and exemplifies the difficult choices of the US/EU in creating a policy that both protects their strategic interests yet also defends democracy in the world.

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has come out and bluntly stated that Russia's war was the West's challenge. He's obviously a biased participant in the conflict, but let's face it, he is a democratically-elected leader forming a state based on the rule of law and a market economy deep in a region beset by authoritarian states dominated by Russia. Saakashvili states, “If the international community allows Russia to crush our democratic, independent state, it will be giving carte blanche to authoritarian governments everywhere. Russia intends to destroy not just a country but an idea.” Saakashvili does not mince words, as he argues that if the West turns its back on his country, they are turning their back on democracy everywhere. Daniel Henniger of the WSJ joins this challenging call to the US/West, arguing against realpolitik. He states “Some argue that Georgia is not a primary American interest. They see Georgia as ultimately a place that transits oil and gas through pipelines from somewhere else to Turkey or onto Europe. Georgia is unlucky geography. This is false. When this crisis ends, Georgia will be either a model for a world that works or a world whose members do business with knives.” Presidential candidate John McCain agrees with this premise for action, though in a more measured way (i.e. he's a politician) asserting, “This small democracy, far away from our shores, is an inspiration to all those who cherish our deepest ideals. As I told President Saakashvili on the day the cease-fire was declared, today we are all Georgians. We mustn't forget it.”

The great fear is that Russia is emboldened by its uninterrupted assault on Georgian sovereignty and therefore could more critically and concretely threaten other former Soviet states who get to close to the West. The Eastern European Baltic States, Ukraine and Belarus have the most to fear, but the Central Asian states may also have to measure their encroachments with the West as well to make sure not to anger the Russian Bear who is now wide awake. So yes, this is a test for the West, and just like in the rough old days of 19th and early 20th century world politics there will be winners and losers. The US/West must make sure they are presenting to all former Soviet states, especially those making moves toward democracy and free markets, that they have a strong supporter who will defend their national sovereignty and ability to interact with all international actors.

There is a second aspect to the Russian-Georgia conflict that unequivocally enters into the world of realpolitik and that is the oil and gas pipelines that use Georgian and Azerbaijan territory to circumvent Russia and send those goods to the West. One could argue that the West should get involved in this incident and stop Russia based strictly on this issue. The invasion puts in doubt the secure transit of gas through the BTC pipeline and all future lines, such as the Nabucco, that would transverse Georgian territory. This corridor is the by far the best option for European states to avoid the Russian chokehold on CA gas and Moscow's venture into Georgia may have severely affected its future prosperity. In other words, a successful Russian domination or Finlandization of Georgia would not only force CA states to back away from the West out of fear of Russian retaliation, but also may close one of their best options to diversify their gas and oil deliveries, putting them even deeper into Gazprom's strong hands. Melik Kaylan describes the implications of this rather well.

So the US/EU/West has many reasons to confront (I’m not talking militarily) Russia in Georgia, with strong grounds in strategic interests and in promoting a secure world for democratic and liberal states in the world. I’ll leave with a few more words and a direct challenge from the Georgian President; “I have staked my country's fate on the West's rhetoric about democracy and liberty. As Georgians come under attack, we must ask: If the West is not with us, who is it with? If the line is not drawn now, when will it be drawn?” (Latest actions by the US/EU)

Who's got a craving for some diplomacy?! I know I do. Here are a couple items of interest. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and four other US senators are near the end of a diplomatic trip to Germany, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. This trip did not have quite the fan fare as Obama's recent overseas visit, as it took me a little while to find out what the heck they were doing there. In a general statement Reid said they would focus on ‘progress on terrorism, global climate change, development and democracy.’

The most publicized part of the trip was Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, where Reid and the others met with President Bakiyev, urging further political and developmental progress. Reid stated;

"Kyrgyzstan has made tremendous progress as a developing democracy," said Reid. "What we have seen here has been very impressive, but there is more to do to strengthen this democracy and ensure that it is long-lasting. President Bakiyev has a key role to play in that."

The group of senators then went on to visit the Manas Coalition Air Base, which hosts US forces on their way to duty in Afghanistan. On August 5, an interesting incident occurred slightly connecting the diplomatic visit and Manas base; Kyrg police raided an apartment rented by US officials and seized what they said were dozens of illegal firearms and weapons. Apparently, US officials explained that the weapons were used to train Kyrg military/police forces and had been put in the apartment because of organizational shortcomings and they promised to solve the problem. So it appears that it was just a misunderstanding, but for the Manas base, and the US presence it allows, this was not the first diplomatic flare up. A US Air Force serviceman shot and killed a Kyrg man in what was called a 'security threat, a US officer went missing for three days and claimed she was kidnapped, and a US tanker jet collided with a Kyrg passenger plane on the runway causing an emergency landing immediately after take-off. The US must be a polite, quiet guest in order to maintain Kyrg citizen and government support, and hopefully Reid's visit helped in this regard.

Kyrg President Bakiyev and his fellow Central Asian and Transcaucasian leaders Turkmenistan's President Berdymukhamedev, Tajik's President Rakhmon, Armenia's President Sarkisyan, and Azerbaijan's President Aliyev were treated to breakfast by Hu Jintao in Beijing the day after the Olympic Opening Ceremony's. Hu called them ‘old friends’ and said that they had been building mutual political trust and scored remarkable results in the cooperation in security, humanitarianism, economy and trade, and energy. The visiting leaders reportedly also heaped praise on Hu and China for its performance at the Opening Ceremony and upcoming Games. Sounds like a good time was had by all, but why wasn't Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili invited?

This just in, Secretary of State Rice will be traveling to France and then on to Tbilisi, Georgia to help broker a cease-fire that has failed to stick. President Bush also said that American troops will be sent into the troubled nation to oversee a ‘vigorous and ongoing’ humanitarian mission. Also of note, Georgia has pulled out of the Russia-dominated Commonwealth of Independent States, and the local Human Rights Center “Citizens Against Corruption” in Kyrgyzstan is advocating for the nation to do the same. This conflict seems to not be going away anytime soon and its impact may be having unforeseen consequences for Russia, China, the West, and of course for all former Soviet states.