Central Asia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Photo Source: New York Times)

Gulnoza Saidazimova of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty about a month ago catalogued the child labor situation in Central Asia. Unfortunately child labor is abused in all most all Central Asian states, but in different ways and to different degrees. Saidazimova first discusses Tajikistan’s use of child labor as a ‘lifeline for their families’ who are forced by extreme poverty to take their children out of school and put them to work on the family farm or marketplace. As is common in all CA states, the Tajik government makes pronouncements against the practice, but does nearly nothing to curb its actual use.

On the other side, there is Uzbekistan, where forced child labor is actually state policy, as the children are deemed necessary in the major cotton harvest every September. Human Rights groups have put pressure on Uzbekistan and companies who do retail business with their cotton and have had some success. Major clothing companies such as Tesco, Marks & Spencer, Gap, and H & M, as well as some textile producers in South Asia have decided to stop buying Uzbek cotton and the Uzbek government has adopted a law on ‘Guarantees of the Rights of the Child’ and ratified the Internatioanl Labor Organization’s convention on the worst forms of child labor. But the proof is in the pudding this September. Will anything really change? Will Uzbekistan implement these policies and find alternative ways to complete their harvest in an economically feasible way without children’s hands? In Saidazimova’s report only the Kyrgyzstan government comes up looking rosy on this issue. As she states, it has been at the ‘forefront’ in the fight against child ’slavery’ and not only cooperates with international organizations but also puts actual funds to stop the practice as well. Is child labor in Central Asia a purely economic issue? Social issue? Cultural issue? Can human rights groups’ political pressure do enough, or are structural economic efforts necessary? Can strong political policies and implementation stop or curtail the practice? Is the use of children in work a part of the culture, and therefore more deeply embedded, in the region?

Sticking with the kids, on July 16 Tashkent held a UNICEF sponsored conference promoting comprehensive prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV in the region (PMTCT). The conference also focused on pediatric HIV/AIDs care. Tragically, the occurrence of mother-to-child HIV is still a major problem in the region due to poor health structures and nurse/doctor training. Hopefully this conference can make a difference, and at least it is showing an effort to face this unpleasant, but pressing problem by the region’s leaders.

On an unrelated note, two men accused of being Uighur separatists committed what the Chinese government has called a ‘terrorist’ act when they attacked and killed several border policemen in Kashgar, Xinjiang Province yesterday, just days before the Olympics are set to start.

(Photo Source: Central Asian children pick cotton (Radio Free Europe) and (International Labor Organization (ILO), ILO-IPEC PROACT-CAR project)

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m a couple days late, actually with the saturated media coverage it seems much longer, but Presidential candidate Barack Obama visited Afghanistan, meeting with US troops and the Afghan leadership. Reports stated that he made the trip to highlight the nation as the main front as the war on terror, more so than Iraq. I was pleased to hear that Obama visited, or at least flew over, the Pakistan-Afghan border where the insurgency is the strongest and where most NATO/US soldiers are dying. As I wrote last week this strategic area is of vital importance to US, regional, and international security and has been widely misunderstood by US officials and the media at large, so hopefully Obama was able to provide himself a clearer picture of the conflict by his visit (which I must say is about time, why did it take him this long to checkout the war-torn/vital nation? Well I’m at in this parantheses opinion piece, I have been also less than thrilled with Presidential candidate John McCain’s emphasis on Afghanistan, the public needs to know what the US/NATO/Afghan government is up against.) In positive news, Obama is reportedly going to ask Europe to ’shoulder more of the burden to help deal with global security threats’ in his upcoming Berlin speech. The global security threats definitely include Afghanistan and hopefully a fresh dialogue of NATO’s role can be opened.

In a reversal from the past few years, Afghanistan has taken over Iraq as the top international news story in the US. We can only hope this leads to more educated and effective policy prescriptions by politicians, backed by a knowledgeable populace. Here are a few worthwhile stories about the Afghan situation. I will not call this a link dump, there is just too much to cover for me to comment on them all, so let’s call it a ‘link gentle lay down’ instead.

Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida’ie asserted that Al Qaeda was for the most part leaving Iraq and that many of its members were heading to Afghanistan. The Ambassador stated, ‘’We have heard reports recently that many of the foreign fighters that were in Iraq have left, either back to their homeland or going to fight in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is now seeming to be more suitable for al-Qaida fighters.'’ Good news for Iraq, bad news for Afghanistan. That seems to be the trend lately.

Top Pentagon officials have recommended hundreds of more troops for the Afghan effort, but the official recommendation hasn’t been approved by Joint Chief of Staff Adm. Mullen or Defense Secretary Gates. Obama, McCain, and top commanders in Afghanistan have recommended about 10,000 more troops for the war.

Nancy Hatch Dupree, director of the Afghanistan Center at Kabul University, advocates greater support for education and literacy development in Afghanistan in her New York Times Op-Ed ‘Rebuilding Afghanistan, One Book at a Time‘. The Taliban have made schools, specifically ones that teach girls, a central target in their insurgency against the Afghan government.

Lastly, the New York Times Magazine has a major article about Afghanistan’s drug trade, titled ‘Is Afghanistan a Narco-State?’ I have not had a chance to read the whole article, but here is a shorter preview about a former US official who apparently was the main source for the article. I will try to summarize and analyze the article at a later date.

(Photo Source: New York Times)

Kazakhstan has found itself in the news lately, firstly, to no one’s surprise concerning energy resources, as the nation has begun building a natural gas pipeline connecting Central Asia to China and Gazprom’s recent announcement that they expect to double the price they pay for Central Asian gas (bad news for their Euro customers as Russia will not be the last entity to foot the bill). However, Kazakhstan’s leader, capital, and 2010 Chairmanship of the OSCE provide just a few other reasons for it to be in Central Asia’s spotlight.

Chairmanship of OSCE - OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb paid a visit to Astana last week and met with President Nazarbayev, leader of Senate, Foreign Minister Tazhin, and political party and civil society representatives. Stubb stated “Central Asia plays a key role in the OSCE, both as a region facing several challenges and as an active participant and supporter of the Organization’s plans to intensify engagement with Afghanistan.’ In reference to Kazak’s future chairmanship, Stubb stated the nation had a “unique chance to demonstrate its leadership by preparing carefully and by adopting and implementing reforms.” Now what could these reforms be, possibly democratic? Indeed, Stubb went on; “we welcome progress achieved so far, and hope to see swift continuation of reforms in fields such as media, elections and political parties.” Stubb went on to be more specific about these reforms, speaking of freedom of assembly, elections, religious freedom and religious associations, and ‘emphasized’ the ‘need for all political forces in society to have a chance to be heard.’ It would be a wonderful thing if Nazarbayev and the Kazak government could respond to these words and the 2010 chairmanship with real reform in these key sectors.

Ban Ki-Moon and Astana and Nazarbayev’s Birthday - UN General Secretary Ki-Moon spoke about Kazakhstan and its capitol and president’s birthday as well, but he left out the part about democracy. He expressed ‘admiration’ with the role the nation plays in the ‘provision of peace and stability’ in the region and gave his ‘warmest wishes’ to Astana’s 10 year jubilee and Nazarbayev’s birthday. Here is a quick history of the Kazak capitol. Nazarbayev has made quite the effort in modernizing the city in recent years and just made a speech detailing future improvements to what he calls ‘Central Asia’s first postindustrial city.’ In the speech, he discussed the development of high technological productions, service sectors, and the hope that the city will continue to become a regional business center. He concluded his speech, ‘Astana will be a city of high standards.’

One more bit of Kazak news: High level meetings have taken place recently between the leaders of Hungary and Kazakhstan as trade between the two states has considerably increased in recent years. A Hungarian diplomat stated that they consider Kazakhstan as a strategic partner.

That’s all folks, I hope I covered at least half of Kazak news.

On Friday, we discussed Russian President Medvedev’s recent three nation visit to Central Asia, a visit that seemingly had one thing on its mind; gas and oil. A couple weeks ago, EU representatives made their second major stopover in a matter of months to Turkmenistan to discuss energy, specifically gas reserves for the Nabucco pipeline which would circumvent Russian territory and land space, and trade, basically getting Turkmenistan into the WTO. However, just by taking a glance at the EU’s first annual Progress Report of their 2007-2013 EU Strategy for Central Asia, one can see that the EU is interested in more than just oil/gas/trade. Human Rights issues dot the document and EU perspectives on their role in the region.

The Report stated 5 Goals for the EU-Central Asian Strategy:

1. Promotion of Human Rights and Democratization

2. Enhancement of Education

3. Increasing the Rule of Law

4. Promote Regional Integration in the areas of environment and water

5. Coordination on Border and Drug Trafficking Management

Here is an analysis of the EU-Central Asian Strategy of the its 1-year progress report by Eurasia Daily and a local one by Kazinform. The Eurasia Daily quotes the EU report’s analysis of its accomplishments, calling them ‘encouraging’ and that ‘after only one year, a new quality of cooperation has evolved between Central Asia and the EU.’ Concerning the sticky issue of human rights promotion, the report asserted that all 5 CA states were willing to commit to the human rights dialogue. The Eurasia Daily analysis of the report also acknowledges the Strategy’s critics, some who argue that the overly ideological (idealistic?) approach the group takes with the region’s authoritative states is excessive, and others who instead assert that the EU plays too much realpolitik in region, ignoring human rights and democracy issues in order to secure energy resources and strategic interests. Here are two voices who agree with latter assertion: Danish journalist and political scientist Michael Andersen and Cornelius Graubner at the Central Asian-Caucacus Institute.

Like all things in domestic and international politics, the truth is somewhere in the middle. There is no doubt in my mind that the EU’s belief and policy’s in regards to human rights and democracy promotion are genuine. Putting a liberal bent on geopolitical policies in a region without a history of such ideals is a challenging endeavor to say the least. Europe desires relief from one autocratic energy ruler, Russia, and to accomplish this they need to deal with other autocratic rulers. But unlike Russia and China, the EU blatantly advocates and concretely promotes human rights and democracy in the region to go along with its material interests. This can be exemplified by a recent visit to CA by the German Commissioner of Human Rights. The Commissioner was due to speak and listen to civil society and opposition groups in several nations. This small visit by a ‘Commissioner’ may not be as significant or visible as an oil/gas deal, such as Nabucco, but it has an affect, and hopefully this ripples and ripples throughout the region.

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

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

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

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

Today I have several stories to treat you to; some old, some new, some interesting, some bor…well you get the idea.

• Last March, Turkmen President Berdymukhamedov announced his country’s second military doctrine. The change appears to be in accord with Turkmenistan’s recent more open diplomatic and international posture, a strong departure from its recent isolationist past. Though one must not expect too much change too soon, as Berdymukhamedov stated that the nation’s military doctrine will ’still be based on permanent neutrality of the state and the acknowledgment that necessary levels of defense capability must be maintained.’
• Co-Chair Alcee Hastings on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) and a bipartisan Congressional delegation, led by Senator Ben Cardin, was the largest ever diplomatic delegation to visit Kazakhstan. The attendees discussed Kazak’s 2010 OSCE Chairmanship as well as energy, igration, security, religious freedom and women’s rights. Here’s a telling and hopeful quote from Chair Hastings; “I think it will be extremely successful. The reason is that Kazakhstan is the first Central Asian country to chair. The simple fact that I believe - this will help Kazakhstan and this will help others in Central Asia and by the time that they finish their chair they will have learned a lot and that will be implemented here, that will benefit the people of both sides and reform elections and human rights here in this country.” It is much too early to tell how the Chairmanship will help open up Kazak or the CA states’ governments, but this particular delegation seemed hopeful and they may have possibly laid down some groundwork to hold the Kazak government accountable in its claims of transparency and allowance of individual freedoms.
• Pakistan’s new Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani stated that ‘foreign elements’ from the CA region were behind the latest unrest in his country’s tribal belt, aka the Pashtun-majority Federal Administrated Tribal Areas. Gilani gave no evidence to back up his claim. He also announced his government was adopting a 3-pronged strategy to bring peace and stability to the tribal areas; 1. Political Dialogue 2. Development of the area 3. Use of violence as a ‘last resort.’ Seems like the same old carrot and the stick policy.
• Paris’s Luxemburg palace held a scientific conference titled ‘Central Asia facing Globalization’ this past month. The event featured regional experts and local and international diplomats.
• Lastly, Mongolia is not an ‘official’ part of this blogs Central Asian theme, but it is an important regional country nonetheless. It is a democratic state and US ally sandwiched between the authoritarian and strong great powers of Russia and China and has a historical legacy and connections to nearly all the CA states. Here is a quick ‘Five Facts’ about the Asia’s landlocked giant.

Lately there has been much talk on this blog and the FPA site about NATO and its role in Afghanistan, and rightly so, but it has just been simply too long since I have talked about the ‘other’ regional alliance with influence in Central Asia, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The Asia Times wrote a short analytical piece updating the groups actions and prospects and arguing that the SCO is growing in strength and influence while NATO is becoming weak and irrelevant.

The articles analysis of SCO’s motives, mainly curbing the US/NATO encroachments in CA, anti-missile system and expansion in Eastern Europe, and ‘unilateralism’ are mainly spot on, but the author’s judgements of the groups capabilities, and NATO’s lack there of, are largely mistaken. It is true that the SCO has brought Russia and China closer together, but the possibility that the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which contains many CA states, may merge, as the author suggests, is very unlikely. As I have argued before, suspicions and competition between Russia and China just run to high. The author’s other major claim, NATO in trouble, can also be challenged on many fronts. NATO is struggling in its first 21st century war, but just the fact that is fighting a battle outside of its European homeland suggests an alliance with tremendous capabilities and reach. NATO’s fight for Afghanistan’s current government and against the Taliban insurgency has had setbacks, as evidenced by today’s tragic suicide bombing in front of India’s embassy in Kabul, but its members do seem committed to the mission. On the other hand, it is nearly impossible to imagine the SCO or the CSTO organizing and performing such a campaign. The SCO’s potential is great, this is true, but we must keep our analyses grounded and not up in the heavens.

Kazakhstan/Regional Transportation

Recently we discussed a new railway, funded by the World Bank, that would stretch from Kazakhstan’s eastern border with China all the way to Europe. In addition to this, Pakistan, China, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan have signed a Quadrilateral Transit Agreement on building up the Karakuram Highway, an alternative route through CA starting from China. Secondly, new bounded warehouses and an intermodal container terminal in Kazakhstan’s China border will be built to connect rail freight between China and Europe. The Soyuztranslink hub will be in the town of Khorgos and is due to be completed in 2010. Clearly China’s economic power and its influence in Central Asia and Europe can be visually seen by these infrastructure projects.

Lastly, Happy Belated Birthday America