Central Asia

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.

Thankfully, a cease-fire in the Russian-Georgian conflict over the South Ossetia and Abkhazia territories has been agreed upon by both states, unfortunately fighting still seems to be occurring in the Georgian city of Gori. The conflict in Georgia has ramifications in Central Asia and for its nations’ governments in many important ways. As former Soviet Republics, it cannot be comforting to watch their former ‘master of autonomy’ militarily invade another of their ilk, and one so close by. And though, the Georgian-Russian conflict has much to do with specific territorial grievances, one must assume that this is an overall Russian sign of its power in the region, a signal of its ability and ‘will to act’ in what it considers its sphere of influence, which includes the CA states. Democratic progress is also threatened by this move, as Georgia had made remarkable progress in this area since the Rose Revolution, and now its future is in doubt. There is also the matter of oil and gas supplies, as the BTC pipeline bringing gas to the West, circumventing Russia, and another pipeline from Kazakhstan may be threatened by Russia’s advance. In fact, the BTC pipeline was reportedly bombed by Russia several times, but supposedly undamaged. Future pipelines that would go from Central Asian states, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and into Georgia or its neighbor Azerbaijan, for instance the Trans-Caspian and Nabucco pipelines, which would flow toward Europe, now have to be considered in jeopardy with Russia’s destabilization of the region, and possible more control over pipeline routes due to its successful military campaign. This conflict and its implications are varied and great, and today I would like to provide a mass link dump of interesting pieces regarding the war, and let you comment on the past week’s event’s importance and ramifications for Central Asia and the broader region.

A short background piece.

Geopolitical Analyses - 1. Stratfor - ‘The Russian-Georgian War and the Balance of Power‘ 2. Agnyan Minchev’s analysis for Focus Information Agency 3. David Dickson on the Oil/Gas Supply Implications (short and sweet) 4. WSJ Gerald F. Seib’s argument of a ‘New World Order’ (not very convincing) 5. Chrystia Freeland’s ‘New Age of Authoritarianism‘

US/West Policy Recommendations/Calls to Action - 1. Gary Schmitt and Mauro de Lorenzo prod the West to stand up to Russia 2. NYT Editorial Board lambasting Russia and calling for diplomatic action 3. Savante E. Cornell’s ‘Don’t Blame the Victim‘ 4. And for a Russian perspective, here is former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev ‘Path to Peace‘

Months ago we discussed who would be in charge, Putin or Medvedev; well it appears that Mr. At the Battle Front with My Sleaves Rolled Up Putin is the one calling the shots in this war - 1. NYT ‘Russia, Putin, Assert Power‘ 2. WSJ’s ‘Vladimir Bonaparte‘

Lastly, what did the US President and the two wanna-bes say, and what did people say about what they said - 1. President Bush’s main statement, which got tougher and tougher 2. McCain’s comments, includes nice summary of the situation’s history and why it is important to the American people, discusses importance of democracy, and earlier on this blog we discussed McCain’s hard line toward Russia, for instance kicking them out of the G8, well more of this has been talked about of late considering Russia’s recent actions 3. Obama’s comments, measured and realistic, emphasized the United Nations’ peacekeeping ability and that we need to stay engaged with Russia 4. Here’s an analysis by the Sun Times comparing both Obama and McCain’s positions, judging by the title, they liked McCain’s position better ‘McCain, not Obama, was right about Georgia’

Your Comments, Analysis, and Questions about how this war affects Central Asia and the great power geopolitics are requested.

Well it looks like I didn’t live up to my promise, but better late than never right?  The Olympics in China have made quite a splash; in the pool, in the Caucasus’s, Bush’s speeches and church visit, and in the Xinjiang Province, where on Sunday a multitude of attacks occurred all over the city of Kuqa, killing around 11 people, injuring many more, and leading to even greater instability and fear in the region.  The group of attackers targeted government and private buildings, used vehicles, grenades, and most disturbing apparently suicide bombings in the incident.  This following the killing of 16 border patrol guards, two bus bombings, and a video threat.

The Xinjiang Province’s Uighur Muslims have definitely overshadowed the Tibetans on the Olympic world stage.   This was clearly in evidence when I saw an NBC special piece on the Xinjiang Province and its Uighur people on the air Sunday night.  The segment was informative, as I’m sure most Americans have never even heard of the region, and discussed the influx of Han Chinese people and culture in the region and how this was causing great material and psychological distress to the Uighurs.  The report was overall sympathetic to their cause and largely stayed away from painting the region as terror-ridden, though the story was preceded by talk of the recent attacks there.  (I tried to get video, but was unable, anybody find a link please send it to me and I’ll post it)

Still it must be acknowledged that the province is getting this type of attention because of these violent incidents.  And though I previously wrote pieces stating the strong possibility that China was just using terrorist claims and fears to further their grip on the region, these incidents no doubt firmly showcase a security threat to the Chinese government, the Olympics, and the region at large.

The strategic intelligence analyst group Stratfor recently wrote an article discussing the extremism in Xinjiang, its history and how it has evolved to what we’re seeing today, and it’s not pretty.  Analyst Rodger Baker argues that he sees emerging ‘a Turkistan Islamist movement with links in Central Asia, stretching back to Afghanistan and Pakistan, blending Taliban training, transnational jihadist experiential learning, Hizb al-Tahrir (HT) frameworks and recruiting, and Central Asian ties for support and shelter.’  Rodger calls the extremist movement a ‘different entity’ than what China has faced in the past.  The article discusses the possible link between the ETIM and Turkistan Islamic Party, especially regarding a video from last April, and most provocatively and probably correctly he argues that this new Uighur movement is blending the HT  and Taliban ideologies with their underlying principles of Turkistan independence, in other words the Uighur movement is becoming more connected with region’s other Islamic militants.  It almost reminds me of how the US/Pakistan helped foment religious radicalism in Pakistan/Afghanistan Pashtuns to defeat the Soviets and then now dealing a force that is ‘blowing back.’  In other words, a mostly ethnic conflict or society is being turned more religious and this may have radical implications, as we might be seeing right now.  I don’t want to get ahead of myself though here (I probably already did), as this situation is very complicated.  What do you think?  How should one view these recent attacks in Xinjiang?  How would you view them if you were the Chinese government?  How would the Taliban view them?

(Photo: Stratfor)

The European Union’s ‘Strategy for a New Partnership with Central Asia‘ has now passed its 1st year of existence and therefore must immediately be judged!  Here are its original stated goals and origins and here is a one year assessment by ISN’s Robert M Cutler.  Now the ’strategy’ is a decade long process that hopefully will go on even longer and its ambitions must be considered rather large considering Europe’s presence in the region has been scant for years, but it is not without use to see how its doing so far.

Cutler calls the project’s a ’slow start,’ but one that has shown potential and should have mutual benefits.  The results have been ‘modest’ in his eyes as steps have been made, but it is too early to see any real change/progress involving relations between the two regions and concrete development on the ground.  Cutler is correct in noting that the EU has made major attempts to diplomatically and strategically engage Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, but is also correct in noting that nothing concrete has come from their talks so far.  Though he fails to mention that in April of this year, an EU delegation to Turkmenistan seemed to come close to a gas deal, circumventing Russia with the Trans-Caspian pipeline, though nothing has become official as of yet.  Cutler gives the EU credit for pushing a degree of democratization in Kazakhstan, using their leverage concerning Nazarbayev’s 2010 OSCE presidency.  However, this influence is difficult to truly measure.  Concerning Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the former has been given poverty reduction to support 100,000 people in the southern part of the country and in the latter, the EU has pledged to help alleviate Tajik’s border patrol and drug trafficking problems, especially on its Afghan border.  In the end, Cutler is right in warning against the ‘Strategy’ becoming too disjointed, piecemeal, with individual policies spread throughout, and also acknowledges the EU’s difficult task of trying to garner influence in a region already beset by great powers Russia, China, and the US.

Two quick Euro items to point out; Though much of Europe {though not all} has been resistant to a greater presence in Afghanistan and the greater Central Asian region, France and its executive have made some positive, strong moves of late and its Foreign Minister Kouchner has ‘called on the international community to enhance security efforts in Central Asia and increase engagement in Afghanistan.’  Secondly, a new German embassy was opened in Tajikistan in late July with German ambassador stating ‘this proves that Germany will further remain a reliable partner for Tajikistan, and do everything possible to further expand bilateral cooperation within the framework of the strategy of the European Union.’
If all goes to plan, I will do a post later today about NBC’s coverage of the Xinjiang Province and the latest spasm of violence that has plagued the region.

Defense Secretary Bob Gates has announced the US support for doubling the Afghan army to 120,000 troops in the next five years, a plan initially proposed by the Afghan government. The plan will require about $20 Billion dollars, which will mostly be paid by the US, but there will be some assistance from other NATO nations, and also involves a more streamlined commandment restructuring, putting US 4 star Gen. David McKiernan in charge of most of the forces facing heavy combat along the Afghan/Pakistan border, making coordination easier for the American, Canadian, British, and Dutch troops fighting there. Both of these measures no doubt attempt to address the rising power of the insurgency. The US plans on sending 2 more brigades to the region next year, about 6,000-10,000 troops. A larger Afghan army will be helpful in quelling the insurgency and bringing security and stability to regions of the nation, but more importantly the army must be strong, trained, and willing.

Here is a picture slide show of displaced Afghans affected by the ongoing instability of their nation.

Changing topics, we have covered President Bush’s remarks about human rights in China so I should provide for you his latest speech, this one his first in Beijing. Bush continued to criticize the nation for its human and religious rights violations, but also profusely praised it for its progress.

On a more somber note, a group calling itself the Turkestan Islamic Party, most likely the ETIM, claimed credit for two bus bombings in July and warned of terrorist attacks during the upcoming Olympics in a recent video. In the Uighur language, the spokesman on the video stated; “We, members of the Turkestan Islamic Party, have declared war against China. We oppose China’s occupation of our homeland of East Turkestan, which is a part of the Islamic world.”

Just by these two stories one can see the country of China is diverse in its problems, but it obviously also has much to offer the world as we see during these next two weeks. Here is Fareed Zakaria’s piece advocating a more nuanced view of China’s rising power, calling it a ‘complicated country.’

Enjoy the Opening Ceremonies and have a great weekend!

(Photos: New York Times: Above - Afghan troops in Wardak Province Below - Beijing, Opening Ceremony)

Xinjiang Shakeup
Since Tuesday’s terrorist attack on Chinese border patrol in Xinjiang Province’s city of Kashgar, things have gotten rather tense in the region, as exile groups have claimed that China’s government has sped up the detainment of suspected ’separatists and increased its presence of paramilitary forces as the Olympics draws near. The region’s ethnic majority, Uighurs, have staged a few protests in recent months, probably hoping to garner the world’s attention with all eyes on China’s upcoming Olympics. It appears these protests are for greater levels of freedom of speech, religion, and assembly as well as protests against what is seen by many Uighurs as exploitation by the Chinese government’s preference for Han Chinese, but the Chinese government argues otherwise, stating that these protests and attacks only support ’separatism’ and ’splittism.’ It would be no surprise if this recent incident on Tuesday does not lead to a major crackdown on Uighur protests or anything that resembles one, but New York Times Human Rights specialist and columnist Nicholas ‘Darfur’ Kristof warns that this could cause a backlash as video cameras may catch police/military brutality during the Olympics and show it the world. Also to Kristof’s credit, he titled this piece ‘Is Xinjiang the Next Tibet,’ acknowledging the incredible discrepancy of coverage between these two movements, both largely fighting for greater autonomous rights and freedoms from China.

President Bush to the Rescue? Kinda.

On Monday, we discussed the dilemma facing President Bush’s decision whether or not to put pressure on the Chinese government on its lack of human and civil rights and on its treatment of minorities such as the Uighurs and Tibetans, well this morning in Bangkok, he spoke up. Bush spoke measuredly and did not mention the Olympics, Uighurs, or Tibetans by name, but he left no doubt in anyone’s mind what the US thinks of Chinese authoritarian ways. Here is an excerpt:

“I have spoken clearly and candidly and consistently with China’s leaders about our deep concerns over religious freedom and human rights. I have met repeatedly with Chinese dissidents and religious believers. The United States believes the people of China deserve the fundamental liberty that is the natural right of all human beings. So America stands in firm opposition to China’s detention of political dissidents and human rights advocates and religious activists. We speak out for a free press, freedom of assembly, and labor rights not to antagonize China’s leaders, but because trusting its people with greater freedom is the only way for China to develop its full potential. We press for openness and justice not to impose our beliefs, but to allow the Chinese people to express theirs. As Chinese scientist Xu Liangying has said: “Human nature is universal and needs to pursue freedom and equality.”

Bush ended his comments on China’s present and future on an optimisitc and in his own words ‘realistic’ note:

“Ultimately, only China can decide what course it will follow. America and our partners are realistic, and we’re prepared for any possibility. I’m optimistic about China’s future. Young people who grow up with the freedom to trade goods will ultimately demand the freedom to trade ideas, especially on an unrestricted Internet. Change in China will arrive on its own terms and in keeping with its own history and its own traditions. Yet change will arrive. And it will be clear for all to see that those who aspire to speak their conscience and worship their God are no threat to the future of China. They’re the people who will make China a great nation in the 21st century.”

The Chinese government will not be pleased about these comments, and have already voiced their dismay over Congress’s resolution regarding the nation’s human rights situation and Bush’s meeting with Chinese dissidents, and in many ways this Olympics is showcasing a strong, resilient state and government, but with pressure coming from world leaders and excellent journalists, some cracks may emerge, leading to greater openness for all Chinese citizens.

(Photo Source #1: New York Times - Beijing Torch Relay Flag Unfurl  #2 Bush with Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej of Thailand, joint statement, August 6)

With the Taliban showcasing great ‘tenacity‘ and ability to recruit new members from around the region to replace those lost, one must conclude that the Afghan government and its International supporters are in a fight for their lives. Hard decisions will have to made for them to win, including the eradication of the nation’s poppy crops and growers. Last week, I quickly mentioned this article, ‘Is Afghanistan a Narco-State?,’ by Thomas Schweich, a top US drug official in Afghanistan for several years.

Schweich brings three main points to the plate in the article; 1. Karzai and the Kabul government lack the political will to stop poppy production and in fact many major growers of the crop form their powerbase 2. the insurgency is unlikely to end as long as the Taliban can support themselves with the drug money 3. the ’starving farmer’ is a myth, as most poppy growers are already rich and just using the lack of government and ISAF pressure to continue this lucrative practice.

Schweich catalogs the various times Karzai and his other corrupt police and ministry officials have downplayed the importance of poppy eradication, emphasizing that it would just hurt the poor citizens of his country. Citing a United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime report, Schweich rejected the idea that farmers would starve without the poppy. For Schweich the ’starving farmer’ myth allowed…

’some European governments to avoid involvement with the anti-drug effort. Many of these countries had only one or two year legislative mandates to be in Afghanistan, so they wanted to avoid any uptick in violence that would most likely result from an aggressive strategy, even if the strategy wold result in long-term success. The myth gave military officers {US} a reason to stay out of the drug war, while prominent Democrats used the myth to attack Bush administration policies. And the Taliban loved it because their propaganda campaign consisted of trotting out farmers whose fields had been eradicated and having them say that they were going to starve.’

Schweich is especially hard on Karzai, claiming he’s only doing what’s best for his political survival and not the country, and the Pentagon, who he portrays as not wanting any part of the drug eradication business as it is not part of their mission of defeating the Taliban. But Schweich is correct, as Karzai and NATO forces cannot separate the poppy cartel from their efforts of governance and battle against the Taliban. The poppy’s are a crystal clear example of the weakness of the Afghan government, the law does not apply to the growers apparently and this undermines all other laws, and the Taliban need financing and sympathy wherever they can get it and the poppy fields provide both. This situation is very complicated and a lot can go wrong. Here are Schweich’s recommendations: In parantheses (hardest word to spell in the world) will be my comments and questions.

1. Inform President Karzai that he must stop protecting drug lords and narco-farmers or he will lose US support (Does the US have any alternative person to rule the government or to at least pressure Karzai with?) Karzai should issue a decree of zero-tolerance for poppy cultivation this next growing season and order farmers to plant Wheat instead, guaranteeing today’s high wheat prices. At the same time, he must authorize aggressive, force-protected manual and aerial eradication in Helmand and Kandahar Provinces (two of the heaviest growing areas, and bases for support for both Karzai and the Taliban)
2. Order the Pentagon to follow this strategy; create security pockets for the eradicators and help counternarcotic police arrest powerful drug lords (Will have to prove to them how this hurts the Taliban/insurgency, not foments it)
3. Increase the number of DEA agents in Kabul to assist Afghan judiciary in prosecuting key traffickers and corrupt officials (won’t this undermine the current government if tens of officials are arrested, even if its positive in the long term, could this short term instability further erode the government’s legitimacy and power?)
4. Get New Development Projects quickly to the provinces that become poppy-free. The north which already is poppy-free should receive significant rewards.
5. Ask NATO allies to ‘either help in this effort or stand down and let us do the job.’ (But make sure they understand our reasoning)

I am sympathetic to Schweich is all out eradication of poppies and corrupt war lords and officials, but this effort could have major blowback. Barnett R. Rubin, Director of Studies and a Senior Fellow at New York University’s Center on International Cooperation and the author of The Fragmentation of Afghanistan, warns ‘Crop eradication puts more money in the hands of traffickers and corrupt officials by raising prices and drives farmers toward insurgents and warlords.’ But the alternatives are not pretty either. The Afghan government needs to gain legitimacy and halting this illicit activity, which appears to mainly benefit the Taliban and already rich growers, can go a long way in extending its reach in the south and showing its citizens that breaking the Afghan government law will beget punishments. A strong move against corruption and illicit activity could help begin the creation of a culture of lawfulness in the state, a place where the average person believes that their life would be better off following the rule of law than breaking it or letting others break it. A difficult issue to say the least, what do you think?

(Photo Source: New York Times)