Afghanistan and Central Asia

I apologize for the lack of posts since Wednesday as I am in the middle of a move from New York to California. Today I would like to go over a few important stories that have occurred in the last week.

Ahmed Wali Karzai a Drug Dealer? - The New York Times ran an article last week, citing American and Afghan sources, accusing President Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, of being involved in the heroin trade in Afghanistan. Ahmed Wali and his brother have denied these reports, calling them ‘baseless,’ and arguing that they spring from political pressure that the Karzai government has put on the US recently regarding civilian casualties. The New York Times report centers around informants’ descriptions of two large drug shipments intercepted by Afghan police that showed strong links to Ahmed Wali, including a phone call where he told the government to leave the shipment of heroin alone since it was his.

I have discussed the importance of the drug trade in Afghanistan before on this page, mainly as it relates to funding the Taliban, and regarding the combating and neutralizing of the growing practice, not punishing corrupt officials and major civilian perpetrators, like the suspected Ahmed Wali, was not part of the prescribed plan. There is a consensus that for the Afghan government to gain legitimacy and strength in all of the nation’s regions it must show it can combat the drug trade and its perpetrators, especially those who are involved in government. For the people of Afghanistan, and for us in America and NATO who send our soldiers over there, the Afghan government must not be seen as impotent or corrupt, and this case shows both. There is the obvious fear that if Karzai actually prosecuted corrupt drug officials in his government, the breadth of the indictments would cause great instability and may further its lose of legitimacy, and this is most likely the reason the US has not pushed him too hard, but something must be done.

Condoleezza in Kazakhstan - US Secretary of State Rice made a one day stopover in Astana last week and held a press conference with Kazak Foreign Minister Marat Tazhin. She and Tazhin stated that Kazakhstan and the US were ’strategic partners’, but that Kazakhstan had ‘excellent contacts’ with Russia and all of its neighbors. In recent weeks, after the Georgia conflict, Russia’s President Medvedev has laid out in several speeches that Russia has a special sphere of influence, and Rice made several comments combating any thought that this involved Kazakhstan; “We don’t see any of this as a zero-sum game. We don’t see and don’t accept any notion of a special sphere of influence and so we look forward to continue to building our relationship with Kazakhstan.” Another major issue addressed was Kazakhstan’s role in stabilizing and helping in the economic development of Afghanistan, including infrastructure and energy projects. Though Rice and Tazhin did not explicitly discuss this during the news conference, there is also no doubt that energy relations were a hot topic, as Russia has made several successful inroads in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan since the Georgia crisis and West has been put on its heals.

Turkmenistan’s New Constitution - In very late September the government of Turkmenistan adopted a new constitution which seemed to be largely aimed at securing foreign investors and not its citizens’ rights. The constitution abolished former dictator Niyazov’s 2,500 hand-picked legislature and replaced it with a 125 member elected parliament. President Berdymukhammedov made a statement that these parliamentary elections, set for December, would be monitored, but by whom it remains unclear. The constitution also sets the presidential term at 5 years, but it is unclear if there were term limits, but this is highly, highly doubtful. The president was also given the power to appoint regional governors, just like Putin instituted a couple years back. On the positive side, the new constitution did several things to increase commerce and the freedom of investment in the nation. Property rights were strengthened along with market-economy principles, both in hopes of soothing the fears of foreign energy investors. I do not know all the ins-and-outs of this new legal document and only time will tell if it provides for any real progress in the country’s citizen rights and freedoms. A recent protest by Reporters Without Borders at the Turkmen embassy in Paris for the release of journalist Annakurban Amankiychev and human rights activist Sapardurdy Khajiyev, both in jail since 2006, showcases how far the country has yet to go in providing a safe and secure life for all its citizens, no matter what their beliefs or political leanings.

(Photo Source: International Herald Tribune)

The 2nd Presidential Debate and the 2nd time each candidate failed to inform the American public of the fight ahead or layout a clear strategy for victory for Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Here is the transcript and video. Regarding military force and strikes in Pakisani territory, Obama emphasized this as a practical policy and McCain once again painted this Obama position as naive, arguing that he would also support such action, but with a quieter voice and big stick, a la Teddy Roosevelt.  Concerning Afghan strategy, not much new here, Obama and McCain both emphasized more troops, with Obama stressing the importance of getting the Karzai government to be more responsive to its people and McCain arguing that new Central Command Gen. Petraeus will help implement a similar Surge strategy that can help both the Afghan and Pakistan government in the fight against the insurgents.  Obama was adamant on the Afghan/Pakistan border region being the central front of US national security and was very hawkish on getting Osama and Al Qaeda.  McCain continues to support the Surge strategy and states that it will need to be altered, but fails to explain exactly how so or connect it to the amount of troops levels needed.  While McCain may be naive on the Surge’s chances of success in the conflict, Obama’s blaming of the Bush Administration for supporting Musharraf as the major reason for lack of Pakistani people support and insurgent growth is in the same vein.  The US gave billions in aid to Musharraf and not only for military use, but utilizing these funds in the FATA and tribal areas of the border is extremely difficult, shown by the building and then Taliban destroying of schools.  One has to be worried at the same time as pleased that Pakistan has a new democraticly-elected government, as it has not been tested and lacks authority in the border area.  Lastly neither candidate or moderator broached the topic of negotiating with the Taliban or other insurgents.

The one person who stood tallest in the debate was moderator Tom Brokaw for finally asking a direct question regarding the possible dire future and present of Afghanistan and how this might affect US strategy.  Unfortunately Obama and McCain seemed to not even here the question as they surely didn’t answer it.  Here is the exchange followed by the rest of the debate’s Pakistan/Afghan portion:
BROKAW: Can I get a quick response from the two of you about developments in Afghanistan this week? The senior British military commander, who is now leading there for a second tour, and their senior diplomatic presence there, Sherard Cowper-Coles, who is well known as an expert in the area, both have said that we’re failing in Afghanistan.

The commander said we cannot win there. We’ve got to get it down to a low level insurgency, let the Afghans take it over. Cowper-Coles said what we need is an acceptable dictator.

If either of you becomes president, as one of you will, how do you reorganize Afghanistan’s strategy or do you? Briefly, if you can.

OBAMA: I’ll be very brief. We are going to have to make the Iraqi government start taking more responsibility, withdraw our troops in a responsible way over time, because we’re going to have to put some additional troops in Afghanistan.

Gen. [David] McKiernan, the commander in Afghanistan right now, is desperate for more help, because our bases and outposts are now targets for more aggressive Afghan — Taliban offenses.

We’re also going to have to work with the Karzai government, and when I met with President Karzai, I was very clear that, “You are going to have to do better by your people in order for us to gain the popular support that’s necessary.”

I don’t think he has to be a dictator. And we want a democracy in Afghanistan. But we have to have a government that is responsive to the Afghan people, and, frankly, it’s just not responsive right now.

BROKAW: Sen. McCain, briefly.

MCCAIN: Gen. Petraeus has just taken over a position of responsibility, where he has the command and will really set the tone for the strategy and tactics that are used.

And I’ve had conversations with him. It is the same overall strategy. Of course, we have to do some things tactically, some of which Sen. Obama is correct on.

We have to double the size of the Afghan army. We have to have a streamlined NATO command structure. We have to do a lot of things. We have to work much more closely with the Pakistanis.

But most importantly, we have to have the same strategy, which Sen. Obama said wouldn’t work, couldn’t work, still fails to admit that he was wrong about Iraq.

He still will not admit that he was wrong about the strategy of the surge in Iraq, and that’s the same kind of strategy of go out and secure and hold and allow people to live normal lives.

And once they feel secure, then they lead normal, social, economic, political lives, the same thing that’s happening in Iraq today.

So I have confidence that General Petraeus, working with the Pakistanis, working with the Afghans, doing the same job that he did in Iraq, will again. We will succeed and we will bring our troops home with honor and victory and not in defeat.

 The Rest:
QUESTION: Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

OBAMA: Katie, it’s a terrific question and we have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn’t finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda.

So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there.

They are now raiding our troops in Afghanistan, destabilizing the situation. They’re stronger now than at any time since 2001. And that’s why I think it’s so important for us to reverse course, because that’s the central front on terrorism.

They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Secretary Gates, the defense secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region and that’s where it will end. So part of the reason I think it’s so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some of the drug trafficking that’s funding terrorism.

But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can’t coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he’s making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants.

What I’ve said is we’re going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

BROKAW: Sen. McCain?

MCCAIN: Well, Katie (ph), thank you.

You know, my hero is a guy named Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt used to say walk softly — talk softly, but carry a big stick. Sen. Obama likes to talk loudly.

In fact, he said he wants to announce that he’s going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable.

You know, if you are a country and you’re trying to gain the support of another country, then you want to do everything you can that they would act in a cooperative fashion.

When you announce that you’re going to launch an attack into another country, it’s pretty obvious that you have the effect that it had in Pakistan: It turns public opinion against us.

Now, let me just go back with you very briefly. We drove the Russians out with — the Afghan freedom fighters drove the Russians out of Afghanistan, and then we made a most serious mistake. We washed our hands of Afghanistan. The Taliban came back in, Al Qaeda, we then had the situation that required us to conduct the Afghan war.

Now, our relations with Pakistan are critical, because the border areas are being used as safe havens by the Taliban and Al Qaeda and other extremist organizations, and we have to get their support.

Now, General Petraeus had a strategy, the same strategy — very, very different, because of the conditions and the situation — but the same fundamental strategy that succeeded in Iraq. And that is to get the support of the people.

We need to help the Pakistani government go into Waziristan, where I visited, a very rough country, and — and get the support of the people, and get them to work with us and turn against the cruel Taliban and others.

And by working and coordinating our efforts together, not threatening to attack them, but working with them, and where necessary use force, but talk softly, but carry a big stick.

OBAMA: Tom, just a…

BROKAW: Sen. McCain…

OBAMA: … just a quick follow-up on this. I think…

MCCAIN: If we’re going to have follow-ups, then I will want follow-ups, as well.

BROKAW: No, I know. So but I think we get at it…

MCCAIN: It’d be fine with me. It’d be fine with me.

BROKAW: … if I can, with this question.

OBAMA: Then let’s have one.

BROKAW: All right, let’s have a follow-up.

MCCAIN: It’d be fine with me.

OBAMA: Just — just — just a quick follow-up, because I think — I think this is important.

BROKAW: I’m just the hired help here, so, I mean…

OBAMA: You’re doing a great job, Tom.

Look, I — I want to be very clear about what I said. Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan. Sen. McCain continues to repeat this.

What I said was the same thing that the audience here today heard me say, which is, if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should.

Now, that I think has to be our policy, because they are threatening to kill more Americans.

Now, Sen. McCain suggests that somehow, you know, I’m green behind the ears and, you know, I’m just spouting off, and he’s somber and responsible.

MCCAIN: Thank you very much.

OBAMA: Sen. McCain, this is the guy who sang, “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,” who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That I don’t think is an example of “speaking softly.”

This is the person who, after we had — we hadn’t even finished Afghanistan, where he said, “Next up, Baghdad.”

So I agree that we have to speak responsibly and we have to act responsibly. And the reason Pakistan — the popular opinion of America had diminished in Pakistan was because we were supporting a dictator, Musharraf, had given him $10 billion over seven years, and he had suspended civil liberties. We were not promoting democracy.

This is the kind of policies that ultimately end up undermining our ability to fight the war on terrorism, and it will change when I’m president.

MCCAIN: And, Tom, if — if we’re going to go back and forth, I then — I’d like to have equal time to go — to respond to…

BROKAW: Yes, you get the…

MCCAIN: … to — to — to…

BROKAW: … last word here, and then we have to move on.

MCCAIN: Not true. Not true. I have, obviously, supported those efforts that the United States had to go in militarily and I have opposed that I didn’t think so.

I understand what it’s like to send young American’s in harm’s way. I say — I was joking with a veteran — I hate to even go into this. I was joking with an old veteran friend, who joked with me, about Iran.

But the point is that I know how to handle these crises. And Sen. Obama, by saying that he would attack Pakistan, look at the context of his words. I’ll get Osama bin Laden, my friends. I’ll get him. I know how to get him.

I’ll get him no matter what and I know how to do it. But I’m not going to telegraph my punches, which is what Sen. Obama did. And I’m going to act responsibly, as I have acted responsibly throughout my military career and throughout my career in the United States Senate.

And we have fundamental disagreements about the use of military power and how you do it, and you just saw it in response to previous questions.

A large earthquake struck Kyrgyzstan’s Osh region today and the death toll is currently around 70 and may increase. The village of Nura, which was home to about 1,000 people, was said to be completely flattened. The 6.6 US registered quake hit an area near the border to Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and China well-known as a seismically active part of Central Asia and earthquakes are frequent. Russia’s President Medvedev has already pledged humanitarian assistance, as he will visit the nation this Thursday for a Commonwealth of Independent States summit meeting.

Contrary to the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates during the recent debates, new leader of the US Central Command Gen. David Petraeus provides us with some straight talk and analysis about the Afghanistan conflict and possible strategies for success.  However, his position is still political and politics seep through at times, especially regarding whether or not the US should use force inside of Pakistani territory, in this interview with Spiegel Online. The interview covers many of the questions we have gone over on this page, including: Can the ‘Surge’ work in Afghanistan?, stability or democracy?, should the use force in Pakistani territory?, troop level needed for victory?, why exactly is the US in Afghanistan and what kind of commitment should it make?, and what is the role of NATO, what can NATO do?

In discussing the possibility of the US strategy in Iraq, basically the Surge and Sunni-US partnership, being translated to Afghanistan, Petraeus exhumes not confidence, but cautiousness, a regular practice for the man, as he adamantly calls himself not a pessimist nor an optimist, but a realist.  Concerning a shared strategy in both nations; ‘There are some ideas that will translate from Iraq to Afghanistan and there are many that will not. The first lesson of counterinsurgency, in fact, is that every situation is truly unique, has its own context, its own specific set of factors—and you have to understand that context in enormous detail to be able to craft a sound and comprehensive approach.’  Petraeus  acknowledges the challenges that Afghanistan brings that were not so dramatic in Iraq, in fact he stated that in Iraq  ‘you are rebuilding, and in Afghanistan you are building.’

He proceeds to describe the differing elements to each case and segues to the critical and deteriorating Pakistan/Afghan shared border situation.  Petraeus argues, along with ISAF commander Gen. David McKiernan, that you cannot approach Afghan on its own, that you have to view the situation as a region, not as one country or another.  Concerning the US conducting military strikes or incursions in Pak territory, Petraeus tippy toes around the question and just repeats the mantra that the US is in a ‘close dialogue’ with the new Pak government to stem the tide of extremism.  According to this report, the new Pakistani government is making a move on a major extremists sanctuary.  Spiegel also asks the General about the importance of stability in the Pak and Afghan, even at the expense of democracy.  Petraeus stated that ‘both would be best’ and then moves on. 

Now one of my pet peeves is that US politicians, Obama, McCain, and to a lesser extent President Bush, have failed to express to the American people, EU, and the world how difficult a task this is and why it is important for the Taliban and other extremist insurgents to be defeated.  In fact, Robert D. Kaplan just wrote a provocative piece analyzing why the US is in the region, is it because of just a Manhunt for Osama or do we have a greater regional mission?  Petraeus is unequivocally on the side of seeing the situation as a strategic necessity and argues that we must defeat the extremists in the Pak/Afghan border and greater region.  The General argues the US has ‘vital interests’ in Afghanistan as do other countries.  His greatest stated concern is the return of an extremist sanctuary.  Lastly, concerning about the length of the conflict, Petraeus gives a sober assessment that Afghanistan ‘was going to be the longest campaign’ of ‘the long war.’

What did Spiegel Online fail to ask the General?  What did he fail to answer?  Will Gen. Petraeus as Central Command leader have the same influence in Afghanistan as he had in Iraq?  Or will he be kept too busy by the many other important and strategic issues in the Middle Eastern region?  How were his answers different than the ones you have heard from the presidential candidates?

(Photo Source: Spiegel Online)

Last night’s Vice -Presidential debate made last Friday’s Presidential debate’s discussion of what is going on and what strategy to implement in Afghanistan look depressingly deep. Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin barely scratched the surface of defining the seriousness of the conflict there, besides just mentioning Al Qaeda, and what strategy to implement, besides just more troops and for Biden more military presence in Pakistan. Here is a transcript and video.  And here is a five minute part where each candidate addresses the Afghanistan situation:

It was obvious that Biden, who is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, had a better grasp of the issue than Palin, who was most shaky discussing foreign policy. Palin advocated for the General Petraeus, now leader of Central Command which is includes Afghanistan, ’surge’ strategy, but did not go into detail as to how this would be different than in Iraq, as in the type of insurgency, geography, and number of troops. Biden voiced his support for more troops, mainly coming from a lessening of them in Iraq, greater pressure on Pakistan to confront the militants, and greater economic development. Both Biden and Palin mentioned the building of schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it is in this context where I really hoped each would take the opportunity to explain to the American public just how extraordinary our mission is this strategic area. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and their supporters have destroyed hundreds of schools, kidnapped and killed tens of teachers and students, and brought a tremendous sense of fear to the millions in the area. And they are only getting stronger. The American people need to know what Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post rightly calls the ‘extraordinary ambition of this enterprise’ in Afghanistan/Pakistan. She is right that no NATO government has explained to its voters how fragile the situation is there and what it will take for success. In short, it will take more than just greater troop numbers and missile attacks in Pakistan’s FATA region, it will take a long-term commitment, lives, and amazing perseverance by the American and our Allies public and politicians.  As I mentioned before, the Bush Administration is reviewing its Afghan policy and one of their major assessments has to do with proposals for a military campaign plan for Afghanistan for the next 5 to 10 years, which would obviously create a need for long-term troop levels.

I sympathize with these politicians who have to cover these vital and complicated issues in one to two minutes and to deal with moderators who constantly give them too broad a question, but the American and world public need to hear how these future leaders see the situation and what exactly they think should be the next step and why.  The situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan is indeed perilous and the US is in very deep and about to go in deeper and as Applebaum concludes, ‘it has only begun to test our stamina.’

Here are a few items you may find of interest…please find them of interest!

1. Central Asia’s Railroad - Continuing yesterday’s discussion of China’s growing influence and investments in Central Asia, well according to this Turkish Weekly report even the Yuan can’t buy everything. The report argues that prospects for building a railroad that would connect Europe and China through the Middle East and Central Asia looks ‘unrealizable’ in the near future due to economical and political challenges. Kyrgyzstan with its slow economic growth, poor investment climate, political instability, and mountainous terrain, is highlighted as being too risky for investors, even China. The report also mentions that the Chinese government may be afraid of connecting its unstable Xinjiang Province with the politically volatile CA states. Let us hope that a deal can be worked out as improving the transportation in region is vital for it to become more connected to the outer world, especially economically.

2. Afghanistan’s Opium Production - Last month the UN’s Office on Drugs and Crime released a report stating that for the first time in 3 years the Afghan Opium production had dropped. and by a not insignificant 19%. Unfortunately, the report gives most credit to the drop to the recent drought in the nation’s north and northwest regions. The UN report also cites stronger government leadership in certain areas that has discouraged farmers from planting opium through campaigns, peer pressure, and the promotion of alternative crops. One thing the report does not give credit for is the government-led eradication of fields effort. To no surprise, the analysis also came to this conclusion: “There is now a perfect overlap between zones of high risk [Taliban invested areas] and regions of high opium cultivation.” In addition, here is a policy recommendation from ISN Security Watch’s Maseh Zarif advocating shoring up regional cooperation and support (basically in Central Asia, Iran, Pakistan, and the Middle East) and rooting out internal corruption. Not new ideas, but the analysis and details are worth reviewing.

3. Update on the CA’s Water Situation - Here is a discussion from a Kyrg point of view about the growing conflict between Uzbekistan and Tajikistan over water and energy rights, specifically regarding the building of the Rogun power station. Apparently, Uzbekistan is trying to get Mother Russia on its side. The paper discusses a compromise based on the exchange of discharged water for supplies of gas and oil in the winter, but it also underlines the competing interests and challenges of dealing with water as a commodity.

4. Dictators Bad, but it could be Worse - The fall of Musharraf in Pakistan and the stroke of Kim Jong-il in North Korea are small reminders that political instability, especially in nations with nukes and extremists, can be even worse. Dictators can be brutally oppressive leaders who take away the rights and hopes of their citizens, but it is true that they do provide a certain level of stability that when gone, can be sorely missed.

5. Barack Obama in Muslim Eyes - The Jerusalem Post and Daniel Pipes take a crack at analyzing how Muslims see the US presidential candidate. Is he a fellow Muslim, a Christian, an apostate, just another US president, or something else?

6. Conference on Afghanistan Today - NYU’s Center on Law and Security will be hosting a major conference on October 17 titled ‘Afghanistan Today: Drugs, Detention, and Counterinsurgency.‘ The list of speakers is quite impressive: Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke, Steve Coll, Peter Bergen, Barnett Rubin, Scott Horton, Steve Simon, David Kilcullen, Hekmat Karzai, Joanne Mariner, Imtiaz Ali, Lt. Gen., David Barno, Shuja Nawaz, Lawrence Wright, Elizabeth Rubin, Nir Rosen, Sean Langan, Doug Wankel, Andrew Wilder, Stephen Holmes, Karen Greenberg, Ambassador Omar Samad, and others. If you are in New York stop by, and for all of us who may miss it, I will do my best to post the transcripts and major happenings.

Yesterday, I offhandedly stated my disappointment about the lack of a discussion of China’s growing influence during Friday’s presidential debate.  It was amazing to me that the United States could have a ‘Foreign Policy’ presidential debate and only mention the word China once.  The leaders, government, businesses, and citizens of Central Asia know how important China’s rise to power has and will continue to be.  As its power and economy have grown, China has increased its investments, relations, and strategic influence in the region and shows no signs of slowing up.  Even the NATO ‘controlled’ state of Afghanistan, China is making major economic and strategic inroads.  Here are some examples of China’s growing influence in the Central Asian states:

-A 960-kilometer oil pipeline from Western Kazakhstan to Western China has partially started operations and should be carrying 20 millions tons of the black gold annually in only a few years time.  For this project, Beijing ponied up $700 million and diligently met the expected time table of completion. 

-The planned Turkmenistan-Chinese gas pipeline, which will traverse Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, will stretch over 7,000-kilometers all the way to Shanghai.  This deal also included a production-sharing-agreement (PSA) allowing Beijing to develop the gas fields feeding the pipeline, making it the only nation to have a on-shore PSA with Turkmenistan.

-China won a $3.5 billion contract to develop Afghanistan’s Aynak copper field earlier this summer.  The price and challenging task of working this unstable and possibly violent area showcase Beijing’s ability to take risks that private companies and most nations are unwilling to do.  Though China will face many trials, building up the infrastructure, railways, environmental concerns, displacing villagers, and possible sabotage, in getting this project off the ground, if successful it will be solidify the state’s presence in the nation and further it as a whole in the region.  Afghanistan’s government and people also have much to be gained if the Aynak field can be successfully mined with greater job opportunities and a positive sign to show other foreign investors.   

-In Tajikistan, China’s Export-Import Bank provided a $300 million loan to help finance the construction of the Zeravshan hydropower station.  Also in Tajikistan, a Chinese mining group invested approximately $100 million in a gold-mining operation.

-China is also involved in the construction of a railway stretching from Uzbekistan to Kyrgyzstan. 

Now these are just some of the projects and investments made by China into the CA region, but one can see their influence is growing tremendously in the past ten years or so and I would imagine that this will only increase with time and a growing Chinese economy.  China also has long-term interests and investments in Iran and Pakistan and this only magnifies the importance of the Central Asian states.  China’s government and businesses have deep pockets, ask no questions about human rights, and are able to provide infrastructure and capital to CA states and leaders lacking in both. 

Back to the presidential debate, it is important to know that China has begun to have similar levels of investments and growing influence in many regions of the world, so may be we should be discussing Beijing’s role and rise a little bit more.

Good morning. I just want to provide some real quick reaction and analysis to Friday’s presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. Here is the transcript (which I also put on the bottom of this post) and video, and here is video of the five minutes or so they spent on Afghanistan/Pakistan.

As the United States current president was reviewing and possibly writing a new strategy for the conflict in Afghan/Pakistan (yes it should be called both now) each presidential candidate stated their views on the issue to the American and world audience. Though my overall thoughts on the debate were positive, (except for the complete lack of a discussion on the rise of China), and each had constructive and strong statements regarding their preferred polices to help bring stability to the Afghan/Pakistan situation, much was left wanting. Each advocated more troops, which I fundamentally agree with, but there continues to be nearly no debate in this country about how difficult this task is and what it is worth.

In the next few weeks I plan on delving deeper and deeper into both McCain’s and Obama’s views and likely policy regarding Afghanistan/Pakistan and the Central Asian region and Friday’s debate is a solid place to start off. Obama and McCain each advocated an increase in troops, basically the 2-3 brigades that have already been set by President Bush, but differed in many other elements. McCain stressed the creation of a new military strategy, Petraeus’s one in Iraq we can presume but he does not elaborate, and Obama focuses on Al Qaeda and the fact that the US presence in Iraq is having a detrimental effect on Afghan/Al Qaeda progress. Obama described the Afghan/Pak situation as ‘getting worse, not better’ and argued that the US needs to 1. Get Karzai to provide for his people 2. Control the narco trafficking and growing 3. Get Pakistan to go after Al Qaeda or the US should do it itself. McCain ceased on this last point to try and paint Obama as naive, arguing that ‘you can’t just do that’ in regard to saying out loud what you would do militarily in Pakistani territory, but Obama stood strong by this argument throughout the debate. McCain to his credit tried to put some historical background to the conflict and even mentioned Waziristan!, stating that he’d been there and that the area hadn’t been ruled since Alexander the Great, which is atleast telling the American people just how hard this task we are confronting is. McCain then stressed that the US must be careful with the newly appointed Zadari government, mentioning the recent Marriot terrorist attack, but alas you don’t come away knowing exactly what he would do to get the nation to be a constructive and useful ally in this conflict. Concerning the entire debate, basically McCain talked too much about Iraq and too little about Afghan/Pakistan, China, grand strategy and Obama undervalued the importance of Iraq and the value of getting it right and concentrated too much on Al Qaeda.
All right, that was quick, but I promise more. Here’s more! For the best unpartisan, analytical work on the two presidential canidate’s views on the Afghan/Pakistan and the world, I recommend George Freidman’s Stratfor articles, which are centered around this debate:

1. The New President and the Global Landscape - This is a debate preview of each canidate’s positions and gives straight talk about the difficult road ahead in Afghanistan for either canidate and NATO.

2. Obama’s Foreign Policy Stance

3. McCain’s Foreign Policy Stance

I will post more about these canidate’s views and possible strategies concerning Afghanistan and Central Asia in the very near future. What did you think of the debate? Did both candidates sound informed on the Afghan conflict? It’s history? Did they each layout a strategy that can be implemented? Did they say anything different than what the Bush administration is saying or doing? What question would you have asked them if you were the moderator?

Transcript:LEHRER: Afghanistan, lead — a new — a new lead question. Now, having resolved Iraq, we’ll move to Afghanistan.

And it goes to you, Senator Obama, and it’s a — it picks up on a point that’s already been made. Do you think more troops — more U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan, how many, and when?

OBAMA: Yes, I think we need more troops. I’ve been saying that for over a year now.

And I think that we have to do it as quickly as possible, because it’s been acknowledged by the commanders on the ground the situation is getting worse, not better.

We had the highest fatalities among U.S. troops this past year than at any time since 2002. And we are seeing a major offensive taking place — al Qaeda and Taliban crossing the border and attacking our troops in a brazen fashion. They are feeling emboldened.

And we cannot separate Afghanistan from Iraq, because what our commanders have said is we don’t have the troops right now to deal with Afghanistan.

So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan.

And that is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front — that the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

So here’s what we have to do comprehensively, though. It’s not just more troops.

We have to press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people. And I’ve said this to President Karzai.

No. 2, we’ve got to deal with a growing poppy trade that has exploded over the last several years.

No. 3, we’ve got to deal with Pakistan, because al Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the northwest regions, and although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we’ve been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens.

And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe.

LEHRER: Afghanistan, Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: First of all, I won’t repeat the mistake that I regret enormously, and that is, after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region.

And the result over time was the Taliban, al Qaeda, and a lot of the difficulties we are facing today. So we can’t ignore those lessons of history.

Now, on this issue of aiding Pakistan, if you’re going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you’d better be prepared to pull the trigger.

I’m not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I’m not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.

We’ve got to get the support of the people of — of Pakistan. He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan.

Now, you don’t do that. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government.

Now, the new president of Pakistan, Kardari (sic), has got his hands full. And this area on the border has not been governed since the days of Alexander the Great.

I’ve been to Waziristan. I can see how tough that terrain is. It’s ruled by a handful of tribes.

And, yes, Senator Obama calls for more troops, but what he doesn’t understand, it’s got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It’s going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.

And we’re going to have to help the Pakistanis go into these areas and obtain the allegiance of the people. And it’s going to be tough. They’ve intermarried with al Qaeda and the Taliban. And it’s going to be tough. But we have to get the cooperation of the people in those areas.

And the Pakistanis are going to have to understand that that bombing in the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad was a signal from the terrorists that they don’t want that government to cooperate with us in combating the Taliban and jihadist elements.

So we’ve got a lot of work to do in Afghanistan. But I’m confident, now that General Petraeus is in the new position of command, that we will employ a strategy which not only means additional troops — and, by the way, there have been 20,000 additional troops, from 32,000 to 53,000, and there needs to be more.

So it’s not just the addition of troops that matters. It’s a strategy that will succeed. And Pakistan is a very important element in this. And I know how to work with him. And I guarantee you I would not publicly state that I’m going to attack them.

OBAMA: Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here’s what I said.

And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.

Now, I think that’s the right strategy; I think that’s the right policy.

And, John, I — you’re absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don’t know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.

Now, Senator McCain is also right that it’s difficult. This is not an easy situation. You’ve got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.

And we’ve got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions.

And the problem, John, with the strategy that’s been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, “Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he’s our dictator.”

And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren’t going after al Qaeda, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan.

That’s going to change when I’m president of the United States.

MCCAIN: I — I don’t think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state.

But let me tell you, you know, this business about bombing Iran and all that, let me tell you my record.

Back in 1983, when I was a brand-new United States congressman, the one — the person I admired the most and still admire the most, Ronald Reagan, wanted to send Marines into Lebanon.

And I saw that, and I saw the situation, and I stood up, and I voted against that, because I was afraid that they couldn’t make peace in a place where 300 or 400 or several hundred Marines would make a difference. Tragically, I was right: Nearly 300 Marines lost their lives in the bombing of the barracks.

And then we had Somalia — then we had the first Gulf War. I supported — I supported that.

I supported us going into Bosnia, when a number of my own party and colleagues was against that operation in Bosnia. That was the right thing to do, to stop genocide and to preserve what was necessary inside of Europe.

I supported what we did in Kosovo. I supported it because ethnic cleansing and genocide was taking place there.

And I have a record — and Somalia, I opposed that we should turn — turn the force in Somalia from a peacekeeping force into a peacemaking force, which they were not capable of.

So I have a record. I have a record of being involved in these national security issues, which involve the highest responsibility and the toughest decisions that any president can make, and that is to send our young men and women into harm’s way.

And I’ll tell you, I had a town hall meeting in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, and a woman stood up and she said, “Senator McCain, I want you to do me the honor of wearing a bracelet with my son’s name on it.”

He was 22 years old and he was killed in combat outside of Baghdad, Matthew Stanley, before Christmas last year. This was last August, a year ago. And I said, “I will — I will wear his bracelet with honor.”

And this was August, a year ago. And then she said, “But, Senator McCain, I want you to do everything — promise me one thing, that you’ll do everything in your power to make sure that my son’s death was not in vain.”

That means that that mission succeeds, just like those young people who re-enlisted in Baghdad, just like the mother I met at the airport the other day whose son was killed. And they all say to me that we don’t want defeat.

MCCAIN: A war that I was in, where we had an Army, that it wasn’t through any fault of their own, but they were defeated. And I know how hard it is for that — for an Army and a military to recover from that. And it did and we will win this one and we won’t come home in defeat and dishonor and probably have to go back if we fail.

OBAMA: Jim, let me just make a point. I’ve got a bracelet, too, from Sergeant - from the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopeck, sure another mother is not going through what I’m going through.

No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they’re carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they’ve provided. Our troops have performed brilliantly. The question is for the next president, are we making good judgments about how to keep America safe precisely because sending our military into battle is such an enormous step.

And the point that I originally made is that we took our eye off Afghanistan, we took our eye off the folks who perpetrated 9/11, they are still sending out videotapes and Senator McCain, nobody is talking about defeat in Iraq, but I have to say we are having enormous problems in Afghanistan because of that decision.

And it is not true you have consistently been concerned about what happened in Afghanistan. At one point, while you were focused on Iraq, you said well, we can “muddle through” Afghanistan. You don’t muddle through the central front on terror and you don’t muddle through going after bin Laden. You don’t muddle through stamping out the Taliban.

I think that is something we have to take seriously. And when I’m president, I will.

LEHRER: New …

MCCAIN: You might think that with that kind of concern that Senator Obama would have gone to Afghanistan, particularly given his responsibilities as a subcommittee chairman. By the way, when I’m subcommittee chairman, we take up the issues under my subcommittee. But the important thing is — the important thing is I visited Afghanistan and I traveled to Waziristan and I traveled to these places and I know what our security requirements are. I know what our needs are. So the point is that we will prevail in Afghanistan, but we need the new strategy and we need it to succeed.

But the important thing is, if we suffer defeat in Iraq, which General Petraeus predicts we will, if we adopted Senator Obama’s set date for withdrawal, then that will have a calamitous effect in Afghanistan and American national security interests in the region. Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand there is a connected between the two.

I was lucky enough to attend the Foreign Policy Association sponsored 2008 World Leadership Forum yesterday in New York City and here is a short summary/analysis of what I saw and heard from some of the world’s leading experts and leaders of various foreign policy issues, including our beloved Central Asian region.

During yesterday’s session I attended two panel discussions about the global economic outlook and energy security and heard speeches from the President’s of Spain, Poland, and Turkey. The two parts of the Forum that contained issues most central to the CA region were the panel on Energy Security, featuring EU Commissioner for External Relations and Neighborhood Policy Benita Ferrero-Waldner, who has been mentioned much on this page and just recently concluded a forum on security in Paris with Central Asian state leaders, and Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul, who not only gave a solid speech but took questions from the audience for nearly a half an hour.  But I would first like to go over a few more general observations.

First off, it was intriguing and enlightening to hear from some of Wall Street’s biggest investment firms’ representatives, including Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs, and other finance sector experts and what they had to say about the current economic crisis and the US government’s bailout proposal.  Unsurprisingly, they all seemed to support the bailout.  They talked about the crisis from a mainly US perspective, but also discussed how foreign markets, especially China, were effected.  They also touched on what the future might hold for the US and world economy, and there also seemed to be a consensus that the US and world’s was in for an economic slowdown, but nothing too dramatically destabilizing.

Secondly, listening to the back-to-back speeches by Spain President Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and Polish President Lech Kaczynski was like seeing two different world’s collide, at least concerning world outlooks.  Zapatero discussed terrorism a decent amount, but otherwise his speech was about ‘cooperation,’ ‘equality,’ and world social and economic development.  Kaczynski’s speech was much more combatative and largely concerned Poland’s fears of a rising and dangerous Russia.  Though both Poland and Spain are members of NATO and the EU, they seemed to live in two different worlds.  Spain in Kant’s land of perpetual peace and Poland in Hobbes’ land of perpetual fear and pain.  It was realism vs. international liberalism going at it in front of my very eyes.  Interesting stuff to say the least for an international relations guy such as myself.  The FPA may post the transcripts from the speeches and I will make sure to link to them when they do.

Alright, I apologize for the detour. I’ve been covering energy supplies, security, politics in Central Asia for awhile now and in doing this I came across the work of Benita Ferrero-Waldner’s work for the EU on several occasions so it was great to see and hear from her in person.  She mainly spoke in generalities, like a diplomat normally does, but she did have some telling quotes about EU’s relationship with Russia and the Central Asian states concerning energy supplies.  She called bilateral deals in Central Asia the ‘top political priority’ for the EU, especially in light of what she called the ’situation’ in Georgia.  She mentioned the recent Memorandum of Understandings signed with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan and about her hopes for the Nabucco pipeline becoming a reality.  She stated that the EU desired a ‘level playing field’ with Russia and that energy was a ‘fundamental part of foreign policy’ today, not just of the EU, but nearly all nation’s foreign relations.  However, she did not discuss the difficulty in making deals with the Central Asian state’s leaders who have well-known human rights violations, and unfortunately I did have time to bring this up during the Q and A.  Turkish President Gul was very accomodating and answered many questions about a range of issues, including energy supplies.  Though he tip-toed around commenting on the Georgian conflict he voiced his strong support for Turkey’s rights to transit oil and gas from the Caucasus and Central Asia.  He basically provided the audience with a rundown of all the pipelines and transit routes that traverse Turkish territory on their way to Europe, mainly of course the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, which he stated also emphasized included resources from Kazakhstan.  Concerning the Nabucco pipeline project from Central Asia through Turkey to Austria, he called it a ’strategic project’ and strongly disagreed with those who called it a ‘dream’, saying; ‘No, that’s what they said about the BTC.’

Questions? Comments? Anybody else that attended?

A few various items today:

A. Yesterday, and the day before, we discussed the meaning of a new CSTO deployment in Central Asia, with myself coming out on the side that it was both a political and strategic move for Russia and for the Central Asian states involved.  Basically, Russia wants the CA states looking towards it for security and the CA states want assurances against the growing instability in Afghanistan, in other words, a security partnership.  But Russia and the CSTO are not the only game in town, especially when one is talking about Afghan security and halting the Taliban advance.  The NATO alliance holds many strategic and political cards, as was quickly pointed out yesterday, they or the US have bases in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan, and as we can see in this meeting between NATO Depty Sec Gen Claudio Bisogniero and Kazak Defense Minister Danial Akhmetov and its following press conference, Kazakhstan relys on and is a ‘key partner’ in this Western alliance as well.  At the meeting the two sides exchanged pleasentries and discussed their upcoming Kazak-NATO in Brussels where they will work on the framework of Kazak’s individual plan of partnership.  The NATO Gen Sec stated Kazak was a ‘key partner’ and that achieved ‘good results’ in their cooperation with the nation.  Kazak minister Akhmetov made this very positive overture to its alliance with the military alliance along with the EU and US:

“I with pleasure note a positive dynamics and rather intensive reinforcement of relations between Kazakhstan and NATO,” stated in his turn D. Akhmetov. “I want to stress that expanding of constructive interactions with the alliance, European state, with the USA is a priority direction of the external political course of Kazakhstan.”

It appears the CSTO has quite the challenger for regional primacy, but Moscow knew that already.

B. Speaking of Afghanistan, and who isn’t nowadays, Eurasianet.org published an interesting interview with former US intelligence analyst and current global scholar at CSIS regarding the current situations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the effect General Petraeus might have on the Afghan conflict now that he is in charge of the whole region of Central Command.  Though the interview focuses on Iraq, Cordesman has some blunt assessments about the current Afghan stabilization campaign and what will need to be done to achieve the desired result of a stable, free Afghanistan.  He stated that for the entire course of the Afghan war, ‘we’ve underestimated the threat, we’ve reacted far too slowly, we’ve never had the forces or resources to take the initiative.’  He discusses the discrepancy in the requested 12-15 thousand troop requests by commanders in country and the promise by Bush, Gates, and Chairman Mullen for only 8,000.

Cordesman also lamented the lack of aid and business sector workers available to help rebuild the country, but argues that we either do not have the resources or that the military does not want inexperienced people coming into to this conflict zone.  With the fear that more aid workers will be targeted for violence by the Taliban as were three last month.  The military’s job in Afghanistan is amazing complicated as they must be soldiers, diplomats, engineers, teachers, etc.  General Petraeus probably understands this more than anyone else in the military, but as Cordesman points out, we should not expect immediate miracles from him as he takes over Central Command.

C. To conclude today’s post, I want to highlight an important piece lambasting the Uzbekistan government over its various violations of individual and group rights.  Tanzilya Salimdjanova and Mandeep Tiwana from Civicus: World Alliance for Citizen Participation attempt to shed light on several instances of Uzbek government repression of its citizens and do this in light of celebrations of the nation’s Independence from the Soviet Union 17 years ago.  The two discuss the imprisonments of activists Mutabar tojiboeva and Yusuf Juma, the restrictive Rules of Holding Mass Events legislation which strongly denies Uzbeki’s rights of assembly and protest (in planning a public event one must put aside a minimum of 10 seats in each section for security personnel, ‘how inviting!’), and the struggle for organized groups in civil society to gather and be recognized, including NGOs, faith-based groups, and professional organizations.  Too often we in the West think only of the Afghan people’s freedoms or lack there of and miss what is happening across the border.  We can thank this work by Salimdjanova and Tiwana for this vital piece and all others who keep a light shining on oppression of human rights everywhere.