Afghanistan and Central Asia

The rising political tensions between India and Pakistan are having a direct impact on Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia. The two regional powers have traded influence in Afghanistan to try and outmaneuver the other and it is Pakistan’s security apparatus’s greatest fear right now that India currently has the upper-hand with US-backed Karzai government.

We all know the tremendous linkages between the Afghan and Pakistani people, cultural, society, and state, but India’s connections have been ever growing since the fall of the Taliban. Since 2001, India has provided over $750 million in reconstruction aid and pledged another $450. At this moment, New Delphi has around 4,000 workers and security personnel in the troubled country, not to mention an airbase in bordering Tajikistan. This presence greatly troubles Pakistan as their security officials fear they are being encircled by their rival to the south. This fear may have led the ISI to try and intimidate New Delphi by orchestrating the terrorist attack on India’s embassy in Kabul.

The Mumbai Massacre will have concrete effects on the stability of Afghanistan as it has rejuvenated a game of power politics throughout the region. As India was ratcheting up strong rhetoric and demanding a list of 20 suspected militants from Pakistan’s government, Islamabad’s military stated that they would move most of the 100,000 troops on their border with Afghanistan, who obstensively are battling the Taliban, to the state’s southern border with India. A similar event occurred in 2001 when India moved thousands of troops to the Kashmir border after their parliament was attacked.

If this troop movement were to occur, the greatest beneficiaries would be the Taliban as all of a sudden they have no need to worry about their south-eastern flank and their sanctuary becomes even more cozy. For the US/NATO and Afghan government this would make their counterinsurgency efforts just that much harder and that is why Condi Rice was in India yesterday trying to calm things down between the two long-time rivals.

Just as Rubin and Rashid argued in their Foreign Affairs piece, this is a regional situation and it will require a regional diplomatic solution. A diplomatically strategic solution that helps solve the security dilemma for the Afghan, Pakistani, and Indian states. It is true that one cannot look at Afghan-India and Afghan-Pakistan relations without first examining India-Pakistan relations. As both India and Pakistan look at Afghan influence as a zero-sum game. This is a very serious dilemma because if Pakistan believes that the Karzai, NATO backed government, is more pro-Indian than pro-Pakistan, than its security officials would most likely work for an alternative, aka the Taliban.

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)

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chinese President Hu Jintao visits Tajikistan and Turkmenistan

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

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

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

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

Georgia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy the Opening Ceremonies and have a great weekend!

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

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

President Bush to the Rescue? Kinda.

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

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

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

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

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

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