Central Asia

So with one billion dollars in aid combined with a diplomatic visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, featuring many strong rebukes to Russia and a statement arguing for the nation’s inclusion in NATO, the US appears to have anted up or at least called Moscow’s hand in the Georgia-Russia conflict. Here are couple Cheney quotes while in Tbilisi: first referring to Russia’s invasion, calling it “an illegitimate, unilateral attempt to change your country’s borders by force that has been universally condemned by the free world”, and going on “Russia’s actions have cast grave doubt on Russia’s intentions and on its reliability as an international partner, not just in Georgia but across this region and indeed throughout the international system.” What do these strong statements and strong actions, the billion in aid, in defense of Georgia and their territorial integrity and democratic government mean for other former Soviet states, especially in Central Asia?

I want to examine that question in two sectors, both strategic, but different animals none the less: 1. After being shown as holding a weak hand in this conflict deep Russia’s ’sphere of influence’ the US appears to showing diplomatic and material gumption and providing breathing space for Georgia’s government to regain legitimacy and stability. Could the states of Central Asia expect similar treatment if Moscow deepened to an unacceptable degree their already latent involvement in these nations? Now I am not saying Russia will invade any of the CA states, that plain and simple will not be happening any time soon, but Moscow could continue to deepen their relations and influence with states like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan in ways that threaten their ability to have normal relations with the US/West/and even China. So does this move by the Bush administration provide some sense of security or Moscow push back for these CA states? I think to a relative degree it does. The Russian presence in these CA states is so omnipresent, not no move by the US/West/China, could push them completely out, and these CA states would not want that in any case, but this Cheney visit is sending a powerful symbol that the US sees interests in the Caucasus and beyond and will make moves to protect them and keep Russia from any form of domination. This US strategic move helps the CA leaders know that they have some breathing space when dealing with Russia and China for that matter, and the next section will showcase this.

2. Energy Supplies and the Georgia Conflict - Soon after Russia was seen as successful invading and defeating the Georgian army there was great fear that Moscow would secure the removal of President Saakashvili and then the BTC pipeline, giving it a de facto veto over its supplies to Europe. Future pipelines that like BTC would circumvent Russian territory on their way to Europe, such as Nabucco or the Trans-Caspian, were also in danger. Does Cheney’s visit, US aide and assurance, and the fact that Russia has been left rather isolated internationally since the invasion, specifically referring to its lack of support from China and the CA states during the SCO meeting, though there are contradictory accounts, portend not as drastic a future for oil/gas supplies from Central Asia and the Caucasus and Central Asia to Europe? Well, yes and no. Even with US aide and diplomatic support, Russia is still only miles from the BTC pipeline making EU investors and customers nervous to say the least. And only a day or so after the SCO summit, Putin was in Uzbekistan securing a new pipeline that would directly challenge the planned Nabucco line and also Putin stated that military cooperation between the two states was to be widened. (After the SCO summit, China didn’t miss out on any deal making in the region either, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan) However, before VP Cheney stopped in Tbilisi he paid a visit to its neighbor Azerbaijan. This stopover was no doubt an attempt to shore up Azerbaijan as an ally of the West and as a energy transit nation for the BTC, and hopefully other future projects. The Russians know what Cheney is all about, US interests and oil/gas power and contacts. John Hannah, a US national security advisor, stated “The overriding priority, especially in Baku, Tbilisi and Kiev, will be the same: a clear and simple message that the United States has a deep and abiding interest in the well-being and security of this part of the world.” Well it is true that the Russian disturbance in Georgia has caused EU oil/gas investors to quiver and show reluctance in backing future deals, the US is not going down without a fight, though this is definitely an uphill battle. To provide a real counterweight to Moscow’s monopoly on oil/gas from the CA region, the EU must organize a more coherent and ambitious effort in Central Asia. The West needs to show the CA states that they will provide the money, materials, security, and the breathing space needed, otherwise they will move further into Gazprom’s and Russia’s hands.

These are complicated issues and no doubt I have left holes all over the place, so please fill me and my readers in!

In the past few weeks we have discussed Russian relations and influence in Central Asia in the prism of the recent Georgia-Russian conflict, and for good reason, as the war sent vibrations across the geopolitical landscape, and was especially relevant to former Soviet Republics such as our CA states.  However, before the early August invasions I had come across a few CA-Russian connected stories, that we must never the less view in a new light.

The first story is a report published just days ago, but about a process that has been ongoing for years.  The Heritage Foundation’s Helle Dale and Oliver Horn discussed the retreat of the US-sponsored Voice of America radio programs throughout the Caucasus, Eastern Europe and Central Asia in past years.  On this site, I commonly use Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, an affiliate US-sponsored radio program, sources and advocate its positive ’soft power’ impact, so this report intrigued and disturbed me.  Dale and Horn assert that poor funding, a concentration of funding going to the Middle East and Asia, outsourcing of broadcasts to semi-private entities with ‘dubious’ track records, and Russian supported outright hostility and intimidation have caused the Voice of America and its local partners to close shop in Central Asia.  The report also mentions that Radio Free Europe was a ‘vulnerable’ target for the Kremlin-led crackdown.  Real quick the goal or mandate for these US-sponsored radio programs are to ‘explain US foreign policy, present responsible discussions and opinion on US policy, and offer a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.’

What to do?  Congress can step in and has to raise and keep funding.  Just last month, the Senate Appropriations Committee explicitly funded Voice of America programming in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.  Dale and Horn smartly recommend establishing a doctrine to help explain the purpose and coordinate the specific role of each foreign radio program, reforming the nascent Broadcasting Board of Governors, and increasing and ensuring that regions outside the Middle East receive stable funding.  We all know here how important the Central Asian region is to US foreign policy and the power that the Voice of America can have in places of the world in need of accurate and different viewpoints.  How do you view its influence in the CA and the world?  Does Russia have good reason to attempt to shut it down or is US stepping on others toes just to promote our own interests?

The next few Russian-CA items are military/security based: According to the Russian newspaper Commersant and Russian Air Force Commander-in-Chief Alex Zelin, Russia plans on establishing their own anti-missile system in the Caucasus and Central Asian regions. Zelin stated; ‘Previous cooperation on missile defense systems has proven that the joint regional anti-missile system established by members of the Commonwealth of Independent States should be expanded.’  The joint missile defense system currently includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine.  Will this plan come to fruition or is it just bluster in response to US-missile defenses in Poland and Czech Republic?

CSTO Secretary General Nikolai Bordyuzha announced that the organization will set up a joint task force in Central Asia to ‘become a restraining military and political factor in the region, taking an uneasy situation in Afghanistan into account.  The CSTO already has several military groupings in the region, and along with Russia’s several military bases stationed there, and similar endeavors of the SCO, it appears Russia is attempting to solidify its position in the region as concretely as possible.

Lastly in regards to Russian-led security outfits; Russian President Medvedev has outlined a new security organization to deal with issues such as terrorism and illegal migration spaning from Europe to Asia.  Moscow has reportedly invited all NATO and EU nations, all its ex-Soviet states, the SCO, and China to a large conference to discuss the enterprise for next year.  The aims and plausability of such an expansive security grouping is far-fetched, but the proposal raises several interesting questions of Russia’s current stance in the region and world and its desires as well.

Finally, over a month or two ago, we discussed the rise in violent crime against immigrants, those mainly with darker skin from Central Asia, in Russia.  Well it appears the situation has not gotten better, but that some good news might be on the horizon.  A big issue was whether the Russian state would crackdown on these racist criminals and in this there is one sign of hope.  In late July, a skinhead group was arrested and brought to trial for the murder of 20 migrants.  These perpetrators blatantly attacked their victims in public and used video to catalog their crimes.  The Russian government must show its people and the world that this type of behavior to minorities is unacceptable.

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)

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.

In March of this year, Republican Presidential candidate John McCain made a major foreign policy speech at the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles. (Video and Text) In this speech, McCain proposes isolating Russia, specifically from the G-8:

“We should start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia. Rather than tolerate Russia’s nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks, Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization’s doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom.”

If the US stops ‘tolerating’ Russia’s undemocratic and aggressive behavior, what would be the effects? More specifically, if the US tried to isolate Russia, how would this affect the US/West’s approach and relations with most of the Central Asian states, whom Russia is a nation they could never even think of ‘ignoring’?

Under new President Medvedev, Russia’s presence in CA has been strong of late. Medvedev has visited Kazakhstan multiple times and just finished conducting a three stop tour through the region trying to secure gas rights, and curtail the West’s attempts to do the same. Radio Free Europe’s reporter Farangis Najibullah has discussed Moscow’s growing military expansion in the region, mainly regarding Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. The article also quotes Uzbek President Karimov as advocating the merger of the Russian controlled CSTO and Eurasec to create a ‘powerful union capable of becoming a counterbalance to NATO and the EU.” Najibullah asserts that the US/West have made some strides in increasing their presence in the region, mainly due to the Afghanistan war, but argues that aid given on conditions of human rights and democracy promotion and just plain old simple geography and its historical links, favor closer CA state relations with Russia. However, an article by Eurasia Daily’s Roger McDermott argues that he sees ’subtle’ changes in Tajikistan’s foreign policy, indicating a trend toward a more independent security and defense posture. But cautions that this does not necessary mean the nation will turn toward the West, more likely close neighbors Afghanistan and Iran (India?).

Lastly, Eurasianet.org wrote a piece arguing that the US/West were making great gains in the CA region, specifically regarding irking Gazprom and increasingly the likelihood of gas pipelines circumventing Russia on their way to Europe (Trans-Caspian and Nabucco), and that this was putting Russia on the ‘defensive.’ The article does not posit too strong of an arguement backing this claim, but the EU/US push for gas supplies, aid, and the NATO presence in Afghanistan and in some CA states, has unquestionably made Russia recalibrate its interests and influence in the region, and Medvedev’s recent visits should be seen in this regard. Russia would not be doubling the price of CA gas imports if this were not the case.

So the US/West has made some progress in the region, and Russia has also proven to be able to fight back, but what would happen if McCain’s proposed alienation of Russia come to fruition? How would it affect the US and Russian posture in Central Asia? I do not believe McCain is advocating a complete reduction in Russian engagement, but mainly in international organizations, such as the G-8. Russia and the US have too much shared interests in the region to completely back away from working together, as was pointed out in an Op-Ed by former Sec of State Albright and Defense Sec William J. Perry. The US and Russia share interests regarding counterterrorism, preventing Iran building nuclear weapons, securing nuclear materials, maintaining/creating stability in Afghanistan and in Central Asia as a whole. The US needs Russia to help keep the region stable, curb China’s encroachments, and fight terrorism. Russia needs the US presence in the region for nearly the same things, stability of Afghanistan and beyond and to block Chinese advancements. Now when McCain bashes Russia it mainly has to do with their autocratic internal ways and how these are pushed out into the wider world, for example their use of cyber-warfare and freezing gas supplies to their ‘uncooperative’ neighbors. And it is true that Russia will not lift a finger to help liberalize, democratize, or create greater transparency in CA state governments, and the US/EU will inevitably try to promote this, so there will be inevitable clashes. McCain is right to call Russia’s on its unproductive and aggressive behavior, but the nation surely cannot be just pushed out of important organizations, especially in Central Asia.

What do you think?

Johannes F. Linn, a former World Bank vice president for Europe and Central Asia and current Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, recently made an extended visit to the region and has written a series of assessments on key issues facing the region. Today, I would like to discuss two pieces in this series in which Linn tackles CA’s water issues in great detail.

‘The Impending Water Crisis in Central Asia: An Immediate Threat‘: In this piece Linn layouts the region’s modern water history and current and coming water ‘crisis.’ On this site we have already discussed how the harsh winter combined with the current drought has cost the region’s energy and water sectors to be under great strain and how this has a dramatic impact on the region’s population, especially its poor. Linn argues that the region is in for a difficult year ahead, comparing its last major drought in 2000-2001, and that situation could quickly deteriorate into a ‘major humanitarian, economic and political crisis.’ This piece concentrates on Tajikistan’s dire situation, with Linn concerned that the upcoming winter may see seven million Tajik citizens with little or no electricity.

Linn highlights the complicated dance between the region’s countries, with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan upstream and therefore controlling nations and Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan as downstream nations depending on Kyrg and Tajik for water flows from the Amu Darya, Syr Darya, and Kambarata rivers and waterways. He reports that cross-border disputes along Tajik-Kyrg and Kyrg-Uzbek borders had flared up between March and May. The region’s states also failed to come to an agreement over water management during a June 27-28 conference in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, where Uzbekistan refused to accept Kyrg’s water discharge offer for the coming year.

The situation is very complicated and if you want to get a full picture of the region’s potential coming ‘crisis’ I suggest you read both of Linn’s pieces. So what should the region’s governments and international community do to stop or at least moderate these water/energy issues? Linn offers four steps for regional governments and the international community:

1. Conduct an ‘expert assessment’ of the Central Asian water adn energy shortage and its impact immediately. In other words, find out what the heck is going on.

2. Based on the above assessment, regional governments and international agencies should ‘plan emergency responses.’

3. The UN, international financial institutions, EU, China, Russia, and the US should use diplomatic mechanisms to make sure that the region’s water and energy problems do not develop into ‘open conflict.’ This is crucial.

4. An assessment of the region’s long-term prospects of water and energy balances, with an emphasis on the effect of climate change.

‘Water-Energy Links in Central Asia: A Long-Term Opportunity and Challenge‘: Linn’s second piece goes into more details about region’s dam and irrigation systems, specifically Tajikistan’s Rogun Dam.  Linn posits three options concerning the allocation of region’s transnational water resources:

A. Downstream countries (Uzbek, Kazak, Turkmen) could pay upstream countries (Kyrgf and Tajik) for the summer release of water stored in the winter, as was practiced in the Soviet-ruled days.

B.  Downstream countries could build dams and reservoirs on their territories to catch the waters released by the upstream countries during the winters for summer use.  Linn discusses how this has already been tried and has its setbacks.

C. (Linn’s optimal choice) Build dams and reservoirs along the same river or river system in sequence or as ‘cascades.’  Linn argues this would ‘allow the release of water from the higher reservoir for electricity generation in winter, but catching and storing the water in the subsequent reservoir for summer release.’

I am no expert on this subject, but Linn’s recommendations do seem to make sense, especially because he acknowledges the importance of creating a mechanism for the region’s states to work out these policies together, for if they cannot work together none of his recommendations would come to fruition.  In this regard, Linn suggests the creation of a ‘consortium of partners,’ which include all directly affected countries, regional powers (China and Russia), and international financial partners to help with funding the dams and power plants.

I will keep an eye on Linn and the Brookings Institution’s future pieces about important issues facing Central Asia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How bout some early Monday morning polygamy talk? Radio Free Europe reports that the Kazak parliament has been debating a new draft law that would allow any man who is able to meet his second and third wife’s financial needs and obtain their consent can have multiple marriages. The parliament has debated this issue before without passing and implementing a law and from the looks of it there is a fair amount of opposition to the legislation to keep it from passing, but the practice of polygamy does exist and their are some demographic and rational reasons for it be formalized in the law.

All of the Central Asian states have experienced polygamy throughout their history, as it allowed in the Islamic religion and culture, and after the fall of the Soviet Empire it reportedly enjoyed a resurgence. Kazakhstan decriminalized the practice in 1998, but all of the other CA states still treat it as a crime, though one rarely prosecuted. Women’s groups in Kazakhstan do not support ‘polygamy’ per se, but they do desire that these 2nd and 3rd wives have protection under the law, which they have none of as of right now. Polygamy does provide one answer the demographic challenges facing most of the CA nations as it allows financially stable men to take on more than one poor, destitute women and provide for them and their children. For instance, in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, where a large amount of the male population travels abroad for employment and has many men who may never come back, some people say that the ability for a man of wealth to take more than one wife ‘benefits’ wives and children. We’ll have to see how far the Kazak parliament goes in formalizing this type of marriage.

Here are some other pertinent religious and cultural pieces from Forum 18, a great watchdog publication for the region’s human and religious rights;

1. “Why can’t all religious communities have places of worship?” - examines Turkmenistan’s government’s refusal to let non-Islamic religions have a place to worship.

2. “Kazakhstan: Alarm at state-backed planned new Religion Law” - discusses a planned law restricting ‘freedom of thought’ and penalizing ‘unapproved’ religious activities.

3. “Kazakhstan: A law on Non-Freedom of Conscience” - discusses the same law as above, but in greater detail. And here’s the latest update on the law’s possible passing with some modifications.

(Photo: Radio Free Europe)