Central Asia

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)

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)

Yesterday, all Bush’s problems seemed so far away. But now it looks as China’s authoritarian government is here to stay. The Chinese are shall we say displeased about the US House of Representatives resolution requesting China to honor their IOC commitments in regard to human rights, internet blocking, and treatment of its Tibetan and Uighur citizens and about Bush’s meetings with 5 Chinese dissidents. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman called the House measure an “odious conduct” and said the United States should stop “making use of so-called religious and human rights” issues to score political points. I have previously talked about how controversial these Olympics may become, as China’s government fears destabilizing and embarrassing terrorist attacks, political protests from a host of groups, and desperately desires to impress its domestic populace with a well-run games in which they can be proud of (and therefore keep the Communists in power). Having the world’s superpower voicing displeasure toward their policies and way of governance does not fit into this plan.

A story I briefly mentioned days ago, has gotten more bite to President Bush’s chagrin, though he appears to have had no direct role. The House has launched a congressional inquiry into a scandal involving a donation from members of the Kazak government to Bush’s Presidential library in exchange for diplomatic visits from Bush, VP Cheney, and Secretary of State Rice. The main man involved is Stephen Payne, a long-time lobbyist for Bush, who accompanied Dick Cheney on a diplomatic visit to Kazakhstan in 2006, a trip in which Cheney praised the Kazak government and did not mention human rights issues. At the moment, it is unknown how high up Payne received permission to work out such a deal or if the 2006 Cheney visit was a part of any agreement. To make matters worse, John McCain’s adviser Randy Scheunemann has lobbying connections with Payne. US national security and the spreading of human rights and democracy should never be short changed for financial composition. Payne and anyone else involved owes the US and the Kazakhstan citizenry an apology.

Lastly, it appears that there is concrete evidence of Pakistan’s intelligence services’ role in the July 7 terrorist attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul. The US also stated that they had evidence that showed the ISI informing insurgent elements of upcoming US attacks. These new details no doubt strain relations between Pakistan and the US and India.

China, an autocratic state that directly denies the freedoms of the press, speech, religion, and assembly to its citizens, and has shown oppressive measures in dealing with its minority factions, among them Muslim Uighurs and the people of Tibet, is about to host a world event like no other, the Olympics. Now the US has shown in its history that it stands for the very opposite of what was detailed about China’s governmental rule, so should we expect a political and human rights outcry?  We should and it exists, as will be discussed, but unfortunately these issues cannot completely overshadow other realities that are also vital to US existence, for instance the tremendous amount of trade and debt between the two nations and the fact that China is a geopolitical force to be reckoned with in many parts of the globe. The US Congress and President Bush need to take both of these factors into account when they come up with a diplomatic posture toward China during this Olympic season.

The House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning China’s anti-democratic and human rights activities at home and abroad. Here is the Resolution;

“H. Res. ____, Calling on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to immediately end its abuses of the human rights of China’s citizens, including its Tibetan, Uighur, and other ethnic minority citizens and to end its support for the governments of Sudan and Burma to ensure that the Olympic games take place in an atmosphere that honors the Olympic traditions of freedom and openness.”

The New York Times editorial page praised this resolution and demanded more from President Bush who will be attending the opening ceremony. On Tuesday, Bush, who has been quiet on the issue thus far, met with 5 Chinese dissidents, Harry Wu, Wei Jingsheng, Rebiya Kadeer, Sasha Gong and Bob Fu at the White House. He assured them that ‘he will carry their message of freedom as he travels to Beijing.’ The very same day Bush met privately with China’s foreign minister Yang Jiechi, though what they discussed is unknown. Michael Green, an Asia expert and former Bush adviser, argued that Bush’s meeting with the dissidents was a big step, ‘these are people designed to get the Chinese’s attention. It was not just a political move to provide cover at home. It was an important move to let Chinese leaders know that he’s not satisfied with the progress.’

Bush is definitely playing it closer to the vest than the members of Congress, New York Times, or groups such as Amnesty International, and I think that is largely okay. (Isn’t it interesting that these are largely the same people who criticize Bush for not engaging with Iran and Hezbollah enough) Bush is the head of state and needs to show a certain amount of respect toward the Chinese people and the Olympics, he’s got to walk a fine line. I think it is productive to let members of Congress force the issue, as Congressman Howard Berman stated about the House resolution; it is a “direct call to China by the House of Representatives to end human rights abuses, honor its commitments for freedom of the press and freedom of movement ahead of the Olympics, permit peaceful political activities during the Games, enter into direct discussions with the Dalai Lama over the future of Tibet, and end its political and economic support of the regimes in Sudan and Burma”
The Chinese government has failed to make political reforms as Olympic hosts, as this story about their website blocking showcases, and this is indeed unfortunate, but groups and institutions like the US congress, EU, and Amnesty International need to keep the pressure on. And yes, I expect Bush to do more of this as well before, during, and after his visit, but in just a bit more nuanced way.

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?

Karin Esposito, the FPA’s blogger on Religion and Politics and Project Manager for the Tajikistan Dialogue Project in Dushanbe, recently wrote about a new draft law ‘Freedom of Religious Practices and Religious Organizations’ being debated by the Kyrg government. Karin, with the help of an article by Erica Marat, discusses the reasons and possible ramifications of the proposed legislation, which Kyrg’s neighbor Tajikistan is also considering. The law ‘purports to prevent the emergence of totalitarian religious organizations’ by introducing more restrictive registration requirements.

This new proposed law once again brings to the forefront the continual debate between security and individual and group liberties. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan do indeed have a real security threat in radical Islamist groups and individual that threaten not only the state, but also the nation’s and region’s citizens, as I discussed last week the rising number of militants making their way to the Afghan/Pakistan border to join the insurgency from these Central Asian states. But though the governments of Tajik and Kyrg are far from the most repressive in the region, they are still far from democracies and repress their citizens’ rights, including religious. We can only hope that the legislative process in both these states is open to debate from several sectors of society and it has the best interests of all their citizens at heart. The line between trampling on a citizen’s rights and keeping them safe is a continual test of all democracies and governments, those as old as the US and those as young as these CA countries.

Also, from time to time, I will do a post on Karin’s Religion and Politics blog. Here’s my first.

Unfortunately before the Olympic Games could even begin in China, a terrorist event has occurred. Two bombs exploded on commuter buses in the city of Kunming, killing two and injuring several others. The Chinese police would not officially classify the attack as a terrorist incident, but that’s what the evidence points too. The Chinese government’s number one concern at the current moment is to have a successful, peaceful, and ‘quiet’ Olympic Games and stopping terrorist attacks and boisterous political protests tops this agenda.

The Chinese authorities have taken many measures, some of them basic and some severe, to intimidate and curb possible terrorist or political groups and individuals from ‘acting out’ during the games. For the Chinese government, the Uighur majority province of Xinjiang is a major concern and they have taken many police actions there to keep a lid on region’s independence movement, much like the situation in Tibet. The government announced that they arrested 82 suspected terrorists from the region and to board a plane in the area’s Urumqi Airport a passenger has to go through six checkpoints. The Chinese authorities are specifically worried about the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), an underground separatist organization based in several CA states and in Xinjiang, and recently performed an atrocious act to intimidate the nation’s populace. Thousands of Chinese students and workers were bused into a city square and were made to watch the execution of three convicted ETIM members who were said to have plotted attacks on the games.

The Washington Post has covered these stories very well and had this to say about the consequences of such harsh anti-terror/protest police methods;

“With the Games three weeks away, the precautions already have proved so sweeping that some observers question whether the sense of fellowship and fun that is supposed to accompany the Olympics can survive. Alongside the crackdown against Muslim extremists here in Xinjiang, for instance, have come confusing new visa restrictions, multiple roadside checkpoints, reinforced pat-downs at airports and subway stations, and raids on bars popular among foreigners. The result has been an atmosphere of coercion, not celebration.”

For the Chinese government though, a safe and stable Olympics may be acceptable enough;

“A safe Olympics is the biggest indicator of the success of the Games,” Xi Jinping, a member of the party’s elite Politburo Standing Committee and the senior official supervising preparations, said in a recent speech. “A safe Olympics is also the biggest indicator of the positive reflection of our nation’s image.”

When you’re watching the Olympics and everything seems to be going swimmingly, just remember that behind the tranquility could be quite the eruption.

(Photo/Map Source: The Washington Post)

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.