Central Asia

Whose side is Pakistan on in the NATO-led conflict in Afghanistan?  Does the Pakistani government and army want to stop and defeat the Taliban?  Can it?  As a US decision maker, should you be extremely worried about Pakistan’s answers to all of these questions?  Unfortunately, the last question is the only one that should be answered with an authoritative Yes.  With US/NATO drones flying in and out of Pakistan/Afghan’s border region, the Taliban ramping up their activity throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan, including in the cities of Kabul and Peshawar, and with a new, untested government in place in Pakistan, we seek answers to these very important questions.

Dexter Filkins has written an excellent report full of first-hand stories, interviews, and analysis from the Afghan/Pak border region and he tries to answer these questions. Filkins, who just finished a book about his experience in Iraq (‘The Forever War’), sees a border situation much like most observers nowadays, academic and in the press, violent, out of control, and maybe most disturbing, they all see a Pakistani government and army either unable to curtail the Taliban-led insurgents and Al Qaeda operatives in any meaningful way or even worse, actually providing support for the insurgency. Through interviews of Taliban members, tribal leaders around the border, militants, and Pak government officials Filkins paints a frightening, but all too real picture of a do-nothing Pak government, taking all the aid the US will throw at them while tacitly and at times implicitly supporting the Taliban’s efforts to destabilize Afghanistan’s government.

Filkins goes over the deals made between the Pak army and the Taliban (he argues that these are the only pacts that can be made as the government is too impotent to be considered a real partner) and comes to the conclusion that they basically have come down to this: you (the border insurgents) don’t attack Pakistan’s mainland and cities, and we (the Pak army) will let you continue your attacks on NATO and Afghan forces across the border.  Now the Pakistan government and army have denied this claim for years now, but as US/NATO increase its missions near the border and drone attacks keep hitting targets inside Pakistan, one has to believe that the US has started to take this as the truth and unilaterally respond as seen necessary.  These aggressive attacks inside of Pakistani territory have caused a diplomatic riff that will hopefully just stay that way and not escalate.  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen flew to Pakistan today to meet with Pak civilian and military leadership.  This is Mullen’s fifth trip already to the nation since being named Chairman.  The meeting will no doubt discuss US troop deployment into Pak territory on Sept. 3 and Pakistan’s army chief Kayani response asserting their right to protect their homeland with force.

It appears that both the US and Pakistan are playing a Double Game: Pakistan is taking US money and promising to reign in the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other extremist forces that are causing instability in Afghanistan while at the same time in many ways willfully allowing the Taliban to control large swaths of territory and perform raids into Afghan territory.  The US double game is more out in the open and its objectives are easier to discern:  The US government continues to call the Pakistan government a partner in the War on Terror and provide it aid (such as these F-16’s), while at the same time acknowledging that ISI helped orchestrate the Kabul Indian Embassy bombing and that large regions in and around the FATA were breeding and staging grounds for the Taliban, and in the last few weeks start to launch military missions inside of Pak territory without complete Pak government or military approval.

This is a very complicated issue and region of the world, and I know this piece, just like Filkins’ article, raised more questions than answers.  Before you can win a war you have to know who your enemy is.  We know a lot about the Taliban, they are the ones who burn girls’ schools, banish women from the street, blow up stores selling modern goods, and ‘thrash children for flying kites,’ but what are the forces behind them?  Who exactly are we fighting over there?  Who are our friends?  These are simple questions with complicated, troubling, and in many ways unknown, answers.

(Map Source: New York Times)

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization 8th annual summit in Dushanbe two weeks ago covered many issues and issued several decrees.  We already discussed how the grouping did not give Russia the diplomatic support regarding the Georgian conflict as they hoped, but the conference also set up joint military manuevers, moved along the process of an Afghan Contact Group-SCO summit, and made progress on the acceptance of new members, or at least putting the group’s observer members on more sure footing within the organization.  The SCO’s official website and the Summit’s Dushanbe Declaration both gave the official line of what was accomplished and agreed upon at meeting.  From inching closer to Iran, India, and Pakistan membership to stopping ‘pscyhotropic substances’, they seemed to cover it all.

1. Joint Anti-Terrorism Exercises - The group agreed and actually already opened on September 3-4, joint anti-terrorism drills in Volgograd, Russia. These drills consisted of practicing ’search and investigative operations to prevent the activity of terrorist groups.’  Though I do not know much about these drills, it appears that they are not quite as large as previous SCO military maneuvers, specifically the two Peace Missions.

2. Economic Cooperation - A memorandum on partnership betwen the SCO’s Interbank Association and the Eurasian Development Bank was signed,  and the members worked toward creating ‘favorable trade and investment conditions,’ development of transportation routes and transit potential, modern information and telecommunication technologies, and hoped to further the usefulness of the SCO Business Council.

3. Observer Status - Work with the SCO’s observer states, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Mongolia, was said to be put on a ‘qualitively new level’ and the SCO’s Head of States approved the Regulations on the Status of Dialogue Partner of the SCO.  An expert group was to assemble to consider a whole range of issues relating to the expansion of the group and to hopefully tell me what  a ‘dialogue partner’ is.  A report stated that Russian President Medvedev said that as  a ‘dialogue partner’ the observers could participate in the SCO’s Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS).  Through the years, geopolitics, the real fears by China, Russia, and all four CA states, and organizational roadblocks have kept the group from expanding further, but this Dialogue Partner may be an important step in changing this.  Iran wants to be a member super bad, so does Pakistan, Mongolia and India are a little wary, with the proof being that while Iran’s President Ahmadinejad attended the summit in person, representing India was their Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas.  Which brings us to the next topic.

4. Energy Club- When one looks at the SCO’s official website about the Summit and its Declaration, nary a word can be found about energy supplies.  An odd thing, being that all these nations deal greatly in this area and it defines a large part of their relations with each other. But also not that surprising as Russia and China have and will continue to butt heads in the region fighting for energy resources, and the CA states themselves have tried to make deals with as many partner as possible, even in the west, in order to diversify their portfolio.  However, I was able to find an interesting statement by Kazak President Nazarbayev about what he hopes to the SCO can accomplish in the energy cooperation realm:

‘Projects to set up a single energy market and a common transport corridor of the SCO could be an example of the global appraoch to defining forms and mechanisms of cooperation…..links Russia, China, and the Central Asian countries is already a serioius basis for setting upa single energy space of the SCO.  It is absolutely necessary to draw upa common energy strategy as soon as possible.  There are all components for setting up an energy community in the SCO, within whose framework the interests of producers, shippers, and consumers of energy resources can be harmonized.’

So Nazarbayev is clearly for an SCO energy club, but what about the rest?  I’ll get back to this another time.

5. Afghanistan Contact Group - The group appeared to give much attention to the narcotics trafficking problem in the region, and made steps to increasing cooperation with Afghanistan in this regard.  According to the declaration the SCO leaders decided to ‘intensify the work of the SCO-Afghanistan contact group and launch preparations on the ground for holding a conference on Afghanistan under the aegis of the SCO to discuss joint action against terrorism, illegal drug trafficking and organized crime.’  This is an area where the US/NATO could use some support as the opium situation in Afghanistan is growing out of control and the Taliban are receiving more and more recruits from the CA nations.

6. Georgia Conflict - I have already discussed here how the weak statement put out regarding the Georgia-Russian conflict by the SCO undermined Russia’s stance on this issue even more and caused it to be even more isolated, but here is a Russian source who strongly disagrees.  In the same Dushanbe Declaration he takes a different meaning and claims that behind closed doors Moscow received full backing in its efforts in the conflict.  It seems to me that Russia did not get exactly what it wanted, but it is also true that they were more than welcomed into the bosom that is the SCO.

First off the post below was one done a few weeks ago, but we had to put it back up for so it could be linked to the Brookings Institute newsletter, my apologies for any confusion. Today, will be a glorified link-dump, focusing on Iran in Central Asia, among other topics.

A. Iran

In light of Iran’s most recent effort to join the SCO during the last Summit at the end of August, I thought I should go over a couple stories I’ve had linking the regional power to Central Asia. While, we are on the SCO, here is an article by Adrian Pabst tackling the great power issues surrounding Central Asia. It gives a curt geopolitical analysis of how the interests of Russia, China, and Iran have converged in Central Asia, mainly in their want to oust the US presence. The article was written before the Georgian/Russian conflict, but its analysis of growing Iran/Russian relations is solid and looks better by the day. One can’t discuss a regional power neighbor to the CA states and not mention energy dealings. Iran has also been making a push for CA, mainly Turkmenistan, oil and gas reserves and supply routes. An Iranian state gas industry manager stated that they were ‘full scale ready for transiting, exchanging, and buying Turkmenistan’s’ supplies, claiming that Tehran was the ‘most secure, most economical’ transit route. Just days ago, Iran’s ambassador to Turkmenistan spoke out about the ‘necessity of waging a campaign against extremism and Salafism.’ Going further, he stated; ‘The expansion of Salafism in Central Asia is surely a security threat to Iran, and we are coordinating with the Central Asian countries to impede its expansion.’ This quote could have come from the US ambassador to Afghanistan. Lastly, Iran and Uzbekistan announced that trade between the two nations had increased to $650 million and was hopefully to reach $1 billion in the near future.

Now quickly…

India in Central Asia

I’m not gonna discuss too much here as I plan on doing an update on India-CA relations next week, but here are two pieces, ‘New Delhi looks to Asia for Energy‘ and ‘India Looks to Central Asia for Energy‘, (geez those are similar titles) to give you a little background if you are interested.

SCO Summit

On Monday, or Tuesday at the latest, I will summarize, analyze, and (patronize?) the recently concluded SCO summit in Dushanbe.  But here is the official summary by the organization itself to wet your SCO whistle.

FPA Blogs

Karin Esposito at Religion and Politics just did a great piece on radicalism and religious/women liberties in Tajikistan.

Joel Davis at US Role in World discussed a surge in troops in Afghanistan, which includes an important article by Barnett R. Rubin.

While I hope I provided some interesting stories and things to think about, if not, I’ll try harder on Monday.

It seems like every other post I was link dropping Johannes Linn’s Brooking Institution pieces on Central Asian’s energy, water, and food challenges, but today is the day, my friends, when I actually discuss them!

1. Central Asia’s Energy Challenge - In Linn’s ‘Central Asia’s Energy Challenge; Overcoming the Natural Resource Curse‘ he reports back from an Almaty conference on ‘Institution Building and Economic Development in Central Asia’ and proceeds to break down what the Central Asian leaders need to accomplish and focus on in order to get the most out of their natural resources for their nation, its citizens too, not just themselves.

Important decisions CA leaders have to make:

a. whether to extract the energy resource as quickly as possible or to save it underground in case prices get even higher.

b. whether to run the energy sector as  a state monopoly or to provide open access to national and international private investors

c. whether to spend or save the national earnings from the resources

d. finally, who to bestow the honor of selling the resources to?

One of Linn’s most salient points is that all of these decisions provide opportunities for special interests to abuse.  In other words, many people want to receive these energy resource rewards, and without a transparent government, institutions, and processes certain interests may take advantage to the detriment of society as a whole.  For this has happened to a majority of states ‘cursed’ with energy riches.  So how does Linn propose the leaders and government’s of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan with their oil and gas supplies, and Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, with their hopefully future electricity and water supplies, institutionalize a productive, efficient, and fair way of profiting from their land?  He states four rather general prescriptions that lack actual specifics, but thankfully follows them up with two solid recommendations; 1. effective use of a national resource fund 2. membership in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, which aims to assist countries with managing natural resource in a transparent and accountable manner.

First his general recommendations;

1. Think long-term, don’t rush

2. Effectively manage the path of extraction, ‘go where the greatest capacity is and where risks of mismanagement are least’

3. Manage the overall fiscal balance along with the non-energy fiscal balance, do not let things get out of whack in other words

4. Most important, introduce transparency and accountability in decision making and implementation

After reading these, I wondered how we are to expect autocrats such as Berdimuhammedow, Nazarbayev, and Karimov to just implement transparency in their greatest controlled asset!  But Linn provides two more specific recommendations to avoid or contain the ‘curse’ and rightly acknowledges that Nazarbayev’s Kazakhstan has done a more than solid job managing his nation’s energy supplies.  The instrument of a national resource fund can help a country save for the tougher times of lower prices and curtail wasteful spending and corruption, as Kazakhstan has shown by putting in over $21 billion into their fund and diversifying their economy, building up their infrastructure, and paying off debt.  Linn’s second sound proposal is for all these states to become members of the the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) which publishes annual reports about how well each nation under its watch manages their natural resources, in other words it keeps an eye on graft, poor use, and mismanagement.  Kyrgyzstan is already a member of EITI along with Kazakhstan, but Tajikisan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan are not.  It is the hope that transparency begets responsible government and action that in turn provide the each of nation’s citizenry with the resources they deserve.

2. Water-Food Crisis in CA -  This is a companion piece to Linn’s earlier work on the impending water crisis in Central Asia after last year’s drought and particularly harsh winter, updating on the international response.  In this piece, Linn is reporting back from another conference in Almaty, this one including international and bilateral agencies reviewing the region’s water-food situation and planning a response.  Linn was overall pleased with the response, even calling it ’swift’, by the UNDP, international financial institutions, and bilateral donor agencies in order to help the region’s states to prepare for coming droughts and tough winters.  Though we have just discussed Tajikistan’s water issues, Linn provides a review of the whole region’s situation and cites World Bank statistics and predictions regarding the region’s past and future levels of precipitation, temperature, snow cover, river flows, reservoir levels, and vegetation.  Though there were many ‘normal’ signs of in these sectors, the World Bank report and Almaty conference warned of ’serious economic and social consequences’ for a majority of regions if efforts were not made to solve the region’s water and food situations.  I do not have time to go over all the recommendations, but Linn seemed hopeful that the international community would help the readiness of the region’s governments to respond with effective policies and interventions, instead of just squabble with each other as in the past, to minimize future hardships when, not if, they come to pass.  This is great news that the leaders of CA and of the international community are getting together at a time of relative calm in order to help prepare for a moment of strain and pressure, but until those moments arise one can never really know how much progress was made.

I’ll leave you with some good news, it appears the World Bank and Kazak gov-led Aral Sea project is making some progress, as the northern part of the former great lake has seen its water grow by 30% in the last five years.  We can only hope that this is just a start.

The Aral Sea in 2004 on the right, and today on the left.

(Photo Source: GoogleEarth/PA)

Here in the US, we do not have many discussions about whether our nation is at war in Afghanistan.  It is basically seen as a fact.  After all, we were attacked on our homeland by terrorists from the nation who were backed by its Taliban government at the time.  Only recently, have their been discussions as to whether we could succeed in this conflict, and even those are rather muted.  According to this excellent and provocative Der Speigel article, it is shown that in Germany, questions about the their nation’s role and presence in NATO’s ISAF mission in Afghanistan are the rule and opposition to the mission the majority opinion.

With Afghanistan becoming increasingly more unstable and the Taliban gaining stronger and more numerous footholds in which to launch attacks against the Afghan government and NATO forces, this is a time when a strong will is needed.  Not only a strong will, but a belief that what your mission is is right and that you can accomplish it.  The Germans, who have been placed in the relatively calm Kunduz Province and have avoided major combat missions, have seen the Taliban and the conflict come to them in recent months.  They lost a soldier to a roadside bomb and a German checkpoint mistakenly killed three civilians.  Still there are signs that German citizens oppose their presence in Afghanistan and even their military leaders in the nation have failed to call the conflict a war.  This is a telling comment by the German defense minister and the American leader of NATO troops at a recent press conference:

“Are we at war here?” a reporter asked the defense minister in Kabul the next day, to which an exasperated Jung replied: “We are fighting terrorism, but we are not at war.” Only seconds later, his host corrected him in front of live cameras. War? “Yes, we are waging a war,” said David McKiernan, the American four-star general commanding the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan (ISAF).”

The country and its soldiers have in many ways used a myriad of terms instead of calling the conflict war; they have used “networked security,” a “civilian-military approach,” “stabilization” and “reconstruction assistance.”  According to Speigel, 2/3 of German citizens are opposed to the Bundeswehr’s Afghan mission, and ‘politicians in Berlin read opinion polls more often than reports on the military situation.’  An even more disturbing statement in the article read, “An astonishing commonality unites opponents and supporters {of the Afghan war}. Both are dangerously uninterested in the conflict.”  The problem with this is that if one reads the second half of the Speigel article, one cannot help but see that the Taliban, led by Mullah Salam in Kunduz, are in fact bringing a war to NATO and its German contingency, whether they like it or not.  Attacks, especially of the suicide bomber variety, have increased dramatically along with complex missions against what were thought as safe NATO bases near Kabul and in the north.

The US and several NATO allies have recently been escalating its military reach, performing military mission in Pakistan’s FATA for instance, and are clearly trying to push back the Talibans recent gains.  Will this work?  Is this a long-term strategy?  The US knows that the military is not the only solution to this conflict, but that it has a major and necessary role to defeat this insurgency.  I just don’t see how the Germans, a proud and strong nation and people, could still be sitting on the fence, or even behind, when in front of them is battle worth fighting and an enemy worth defeating.  I’m not trying to say that the Germans and other NATO nations not involved in direct combat in the past few years have not contributed much to stablizing and creating a democratic Afghanistan, they have, but more needs to be done.

(Photo: Der Speigel: A Bundeswehr patrol in Kunduz. At the end of August, a German soldier died and, not long later, soldiers at a German roadblock opened fire on a car, killing three civilians.)

Today I will provide several links to three or so stories which have been developing for days and sometimes weeks now in the region.  Some aspects have to do with items and themes we have covered, ’soft power’ in Afghanistan, another is an issue or event that I have barely mentioned.  Though I want discuss it today, I plan on doing a Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit analytical summary later this week, so you have something to look forward to!

1. Afghanistan insurgency/NATO presence - The report of over 90 civilians, including tens of children, killed by a US airstrike in the village of Azizabad has been perculating and gathering steam for two or three days now, with each side, the villagers, Taliban spokesman, and US military, having different accounts.   The US military insists ‘only’ about 5-7 civilians were killed and over 30 militants in the strike.  In any case, the US military was opening up a follow-up investigation and Gen. McKiernan, leader of all NATO forces, stated “The people of Afghanistan have our commitment to get to the truth.”  This case show’s the dangerous of fighting an insurgency embedded in the local populace and the ramifications of doing so with air power.  We will see what develops in the next few days.

2. Dexter Filkins has written a long article titled ‘Talibanistan’ for the New York Times Magazine.  I have not had time to read through the whole thing, but it show’s the Taliban’s advancements in the Afghanistan and describes how they would lead the region again if they continued to garner more authority and support.  I will hopefully discuss this in greater length this week.

3. A few days ago the US military admitted that they performed a helicopter-led raid into Pakistan to target major insurgent leaders.  Here is a press conference by the US State Department discussing the US reasoning and some information about the attack.  And just hours ago, the US launched several missiles from a predator drone inside of Pakistan’s North Waziristan, aimed at prominent Taliban leaders.  These efforts of course come on the heels of a secret meeting between the Pakistan Army Chief and senior US/NATO military officials aboard an aircraft carrier and provide an immediate challenge for the newly elected Prime Minister Asif Ali Zardari.  About Zardari, here is an editorial welcoming him and here is one labeling him ‘mad and bad.’  In any case, he’ll have some busy first days at the office.

4. With VP Dick Cheney calling Russia’s actions in Georgia ‘troublesome and unhelpful actions’ and warning that if Moscow has its ways with S. Ossetia and Abkhazia; “We know that if one country is allowed to unilaterally redraw the borders of another, it will happen and it will happen again,” there is new heat between the these old cold war foes and Central Asia may find itself squeezed between the two (with a solid pinch from China).  For a perspective on what that would be like, James Traub wrote an interesting article about how the ramping up of rhetoric, animosity, and actual geopolitical gains and loses might have on all of us.  He discusses that Russia truly may have entered a 19th century world where on its borders it only sees ‘enemies or vassals.’  If this is true, and of course nothing is ever that simple, than the Central Asian states are stuck between two very sharp and unfriendly choices when it comes to relations with Mother Russia.

Tidbits: Martha Brill Olcott and Johannes Linn wrote a concise piece analyzing Central Asia’s current difficulties.   And in what is being billed as a visible sign of Kazakhstan’s economic prosperity, the first British private school, Haileybury Almaty, has opened in the nation’s capital.

Hope you find these of interest.  Comments and questions are always welcome and will be posted on the site.

In the midst of the SCO’s annual summit and the US Republican Party Presidential Convention both the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune found space on their front pages to discuss Tajikistan’s water woes.  Now we have discussed Tajikistan much recently, mainly because of its hosting of the SCO summit, and we have also in the past talked about its at times, especially this last summer, dire water and energy situation, but I feel it important to take note when a major media outlets cover the story.

The Times does a solid job recounting the short and tumultous recent history of the state, the Soviet past, civil war, and harsh 2007-2008 winter, and the state’s obstacles in supplying its people and the region with water and energy, costs, lack of foreign investors, geographical roadblocks such as earthquakes and terrain, regional disagreements, and poor management.  The article also does a curt, but still somewhat hard-hitting discussion of Tajik Rahmon government failures to provide services, especially energy related, to its people.  In an interview, an American NGO official called ‘chronic mismanagement’ by the government the main culprit behind the energy failures of the last winter.  David L. Stern, the author of the article, also reports that several unnamed diplomats and experts believe Tajik is threatening to become a ‘failed state.’  On the other hand, the article is mainly about the nation’s energy/water present and future arrangements and in discussing the Rogun dam proposal, the current use of the Nurek dam (Still the world’s tallest), and the problems with both, it was an informative article for many who most likely have never read much about the country.  For a more in-depth look into the Tajik and Central Asia’s energy challenge, once again check out Johannes F. Linn’s two pieces, which I keep linking too, but not discussing, maybe tomorrow?  (The Upcoming Water-Energy-Food Crisis Risks in Central Asia: Update on an International Response and Central Asia’s Energy Challenge: Overcoming the Natural Resource Curse)

It would be a travesty if I didn’t show you the excellent photo album accompanying the Times article.  It showcases Tajik’s dams, geography, and its people beautifully:  Dang it!  I tried to embed it in, but was unable.  Please follow link.

PS: Tajikistan and Russia signed a joint statement for expanding military and technical cooperation in order to ensure national and regional security during their the SCO summit.

(Photo Source: New York Times)

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)

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.