Central Asia

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

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

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

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

For the past year and half the US media has been dominated by the 2008 presidential election. This is in many ways a good thing as we need to know who these candidates are and what they stand for and against, but the coverage has become so saturated that we are starting to miss coverage of actual news, like what is happening in Afghanistan. Lately, all we really hear about the nation is from either Obama or McCain’s mouth. I want to connect this point to my post yesterday discussing winning the public relations battle with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

A. First things first, this editorial by Joanna Nathan, a senior adviser in Kabul for the International Crisis Group, highlights the importance of the subject of yesterday’s post, US-sponsored public radio throughout the world. Nathan’s ‘Selling the Taliban’ discusses how the Taliban have used the media, mainly the internet, to spread their message, garner support, hide atrocities committed, intimidate local Afghans, and discourage the international community. They are successfully winning the PR battle in this conflict and Nathan rightly demands that the Afghan government and international community stand up to make sure their side of the story is told and to highlight wrongdoings by the Taliban to deligitimize their authority and presence. I would also like to see the nascent Afghan civil society take a part in standing up against poor treatment and intimidation by the Taliban, but of course they need to feel safe enough to do this.

B. ‘But Sir, could you provide us with an example of how NATO and the Afghan government can accomplish this? Why, sure.’ The story of the delivery of a large turbine to the Kajaki Dam deep in Taliban territory by British troops, but also with help from Americans, Chinese, French, Canadians, and Dutch, is an event and action that should be broadcasted all over the Afghan nation and world. These soldiers braved Taliban attacks to bring electricity to the Afghan people. This effort should be promoted to the far reaches of the nation; ‘The Taliban want to keep you poor and wanting, and your government wants to provide services to make your life better.’ Obviously, this is a simplification, but not by too far a degree. This is a concrete improvement in the lives of thousands of Afghans and NATO and the Afghan government need to make sure the population is aware of productive and beneficial deeds of this sort to disenfranchise the Taliban and pull away its supporters.

C. The release of thousands of prisoners and the following instability of the key city of Kandahar is just such a prime example of a situation that the Taliban can exploit with their public relations tools. The well-orchestrated attack releasing 900 prisoners, 350 of whom were members of the Taliban, portrayed the strength of the insurgency and the weakness of the Afghan government and limited ability of the NATO foreign forces. The New York Times ran this report in late August showcasing these points and how the people of Kandahar are viewing the dramatic situation in their hometown. They appear to have real fear of the Taliban and of a major battle being fought right in front of them. This is one example of a battle that the Afghan government and NATO forces need to win, both strategically and in the hearts and minds.

D. Bob Zoellick, President of the World Bank, in an article about the keys to rebuilding Afghanistan highlights the gains the nation has made recently in lowering the infant mortality rate, creating schools for 6 million Afghan children, and in providing almost 500,000 citizens with microfinance loans. These positive developments and signs need to be expressed outwardly. Zoellick of course also acknowledges the many struggles that the nation faces, especially the instability and failure to control and defeat the insurgency. I will not go over all of his recommendations, but he rightly focuses on agriculture reform, creating an anti-corruption body, and the choking of the Afghan narcotics trade.

I’m not trying to sugarcoat the situation in Afghanistan or suggest that the US/NATO/Afghan government should use false or superficial propaganda, but there are positive things happening in the country and the Taliban is waging a public relations war that we must beat them at to win this long-term battle. The Afghan people need to receive concrete security and services if they are to chose the Afghan government over the Taliban, but we should not underestimate the power of perception (and deception).

PS: (Am I writing a letter?) Here is an interesting report on an unusual meeting between powerful members of NATO and the US military in Afghanistan (Mullen, Petraeus, McKiernan) and Pakistan’s Army Chief of Staff Gen. Kayani on a US aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean. The subject of the meeting was unavailable, but it no doubt concerned the insurgency raging in both nations around the Afghan/Pak border. It also appears that it was not a confrontational affair, with one aide stating ‘It was one of those meetings to help clear up the situation, get an understanding of the issues, and look for a way forward.’ We’ll see if any concrete action comes out of it. Of course the recent incident of US troops launching an attack in Pakistan territory may complicate the matter. (Make sure to check out FPA’ s Bilal Qureshi’s excellent Pakistan blog)

In the midst of the SCO’s annual summit and the US Republican Party Presidential Convention both the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune found space on their front pages to discuss Tajikistan’s water woes.  Now we have discussed Tajikistan much recently, mainly because of its hosting of the SCO summit, and we have also in the past talked about its at times, especially this last summer, dire water and energy situation, but I feel it important to take note when a major media outlets cover the story.

The Times does a solid job recounting the short and tumultous recent history of the state, the Soviet past, civil war, and harsh 2007-2008 winter, and the state’s obstacles in supplying its people and the region with water and energy, costs, lack of foreign investors, geographical roadblocks such as earthquakes and terrain, regional disagreements, and poor management.  The article also does a curt, but still somewhat hard-hitting discussion of Tajik Rahmon government failures to provide services, especially energy related, to its people.  In an interview, an American NGO official called ‘chronic mismanagement’ by the government the main culprit behind the energy failures of the last winter.  David L. Stern, the author of the article, also reports that several unnamed diplomats and experts believe Tajik is threatening to become a ‘failed state.’  On the other hand, the article is mainly about the nation’s energy/water present and future arrangements and in discussing the Rogun dam proposal, the current use of the Nurek dam (Still the world’s tallest), and the problems with both, it was an informative article for many who most likely have never read much about the country.  For a more in-depth look into the Tajik and Central Asia’s energy challenge, once again check out Johannes F. Linn’s two pieces, which I keep linking too, but not discussing, maybe tomorrow?  (The Upcoming Water-Energy-Food Crisis Risks in Central Asia: Update on an International Response and Central Asia’s Energy Challenge: Overcoming the Natural Resource Curse)

It would be a travesty if I didn’t show you the excellent photo album accompanying the Times article.  It showcases Tajik’s dams, geography, and its people beautifully:  Dang it!  I tried to embed it in, but was unable.  Please follow link.

PS: Tajikistan and Russia signed a joint statement for expanding military and technical cooperation in order to ensure national and regional security during their the SCO summit.

(Photo Source: New York Times)

So the 8th annual Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit has begun.  The meeting started this morning in Dushanbe, Tajikistan (though China and Tajikistan started bilateral talks days before) and features the head of states of all six members (I wonder if President Hu Jintao will be wearing all of China’s 51 gold medals?), top officials from the four Observer States of India, Iran (Ahmadinejad), Pakistan, and Mongolia, and a lot of political baggage from the Russian-Georgian conflict.  Also on the agenda are formalizing and streamlining the admission procedures (right now it must be a consensus), energy, transportation, security issues, and the combatting of terrorism and drug trafficking in the region.  The Summit should have some success in coordinating efforts in many of these spheres and it is likely the the group’s Observer members presence and duties will become more defined, but I would not expect any major breakthroughs and that would include adding Iran, India, or Pakistan as an official member.

In the past couple days, I have scoured news resources looking for coverage of the Summit, and unfortunately, but as expected, a dearth was found in the Western media (Financial Times was the only major paper with a serious piece so far and Russia/CA expert Stephen Blank wrote another one), while in the East there were several articles.  And of course they took different views of the SCO’s intentions and goals.  Stephen Blank, who works for the US War College, argued that Russia was coming back to a group of friends after its recent dust up in Georgia and that the Summit would turn into a ‘forum for America bashing.’  On the other hand, the Russian News & Information Agency emphasized the cooperation of its groups members in a positive and non-confrontational light, stating the ‘SCO is not going to change the world.  It would be happy to cope with Central Asian problems.’

Now back to the SCO, and most importantly China’s, view of Russia’s incursion into Georgia and its recent recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states. Chinese foreign ministry spokesman stated just a day before the conference that ‘during the summit, the various countries’ leaders can within the framework of the agenda enunciate their shared positions on issues of interest to them, including South Ossetia as no exception.’  China has been very cautious, its number one foreign policy strategy, so far in its diplomatic gestures and statements regarding the conflict in the Caucasus’s, mainly advocating a ‘peaceful conclusion,’ but would things be different with Medvedev’s presence and with the cover of an SCO meeting?  Stephen Blank, in the aforementioned article, sure thinks so.  He outright predicted that the conflict would be high on the Summit’s agenda and that ‘China will endorse Russia’s actions in the Caucasus’ was a ‘foregone conclusion.’  He also believed Russia and the CA states would then give ‘unequivocal support’ for Beijing’s aggressive campaign to end instability in the Uighur dominated Xinjiang Province.  Now I personally would not expect such a loud statement by the SCO or China, they are far too cautious and have their own separatist groups to watch over, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Taiwan, but I did think that Blank was on to something, but just too strongly stated.  It seems that Medvedev and Moscow would expect a sympathetic ear and voice at the meeting also.

Well, it appears Blank, Russia, and I (but remember just a little bit) was wrong.  Before the meeting, Medevedev discussed a ‘united’ SCO group, one that would send a ’strong signal’ to the West, and that its support of Russia in this instance and further expansion would “further growth of the authority of our organisation in the world arena.”  As of this morning, Medevedev has not gotten what he wanted and Blank has not gotten what he predicted, and I, well let’s just leave me out of this.  The SCO has already put out an official statement regarding the conflict and subsequent Russian recognition of the independent states.  Here it is:

”The SCO states express grave concern in connection with the recent tensions around the South Ossetian issue and urge the sides to solve existing problems peacefully, through dialogue, and to make efforts facilitating reconciliation and talks.”

No recognition of the breakaway provinces as states.  No outright support of Russia’s stance or against the West.  Just ‘concern’ and ‘dialogue’.   Now the Summit is just beginning so we should still have a wait and see approach, but this was not what Moscow was hoping for that’s for sure.  I will keep you up to date about the rest of Summit’s events and happenings, especially regarding provocative anti-West stances, the admission of new members (Iran?), and of course any more moves regarding the Caucasus conflict.

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.

On July 22, just days before the Russian-Georgia conflict, US Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher spoke before the OSCE Helsinki Commission regarding Kazakhstan’s democratic and human rights progress before their scheduled 2010 OSCE Chairmanship. Before we get into how the US views their progress so far, it’s never a bad idea to go over official US policy in Central Asia and Kazakhstan specifically.

Boucher stated; ‘We support the development of fully sovereign, stable democratic nations, integrated in to the world economy and cooperating wit one another…to advance regional security and stability. We do not view Kazakhstan or any other Central Asian nation as a part of any external state’s special sphere of influence (Georgia anyone?), and our relations are not based on competition with any other power.” It is interesting, but not surprising, to hear the contrast of China/Russia’s rhetoric toward the CA, basically ‘foreign entities should leave these nations alone,’ to the US’s ‘these nations should be allowed to work with anyone they want.’ Each side is just trying to promote their own interests, but the US/EU include a democratic/human rights element, which is needless to say very important and as we saw in Georgia, potentially destabilizing and dangerous. Boucher went on to describe the US three main goals in their ’strategic relationship’ with Kazakhstan: 1. Advance democratic and market economic reforms 2. Fight terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and the proliferation of WMDs 3. Foster the development of CA’s significant energy resources, supporting US companies.

OSCE Chairmanship Reforms

Boucher emphasized that the decision to grant Kazak the Chairmanship was ‘not one th US made quickly or easily’ and that the process was moved to 2010 to give the state enough time to implement democratic and liberal reforms regarding election laws, media rights, political party liberalization, and Kazak’s concrete support of the OSCE’s Human Dimension and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. So how are they doing so far? Overall, the US asserts that progress has been ‘uneven and slow’, but that the US/OSCE were putting the pressure on.

Election Law - The OSCE’s Central Election Commission has been working Kazak political parties, including the opposition, to make changes to the law and expects draft legislation to be ready by the end of this year.

Media Law - The government committed to reform their media law, especially regarding reducing criminal liability for defamation in the media and liberalizing registration procedures for all media outlets, and created a working group that has now begun work on new media legislation.

Political Parties - Opposition parties and NGO’s have put forth many recommended proposals to liberalize the nation’s laws and registration barriers, but the government has not yet engaged with the OSCE on legislation.

Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights -  Unfortunately Kazakhstan has not yet begun to play a ‘proactive’ role in this OSCE Committee.

Boucher mentioned that the US was also pushing for overdue religious freedom reforms.  Alas, not much progress seems to have been made (Anyone have evidence to the contrary?), but the fact that the US/EU/OSCE and NGOs are working with the Kazak government on these issues should make a difference, if only a small one.  In light of the Georgian-Russian conflict, should the West be more careful in pushing reforms in Kazakhstan?  The opposite?  What measures or levers could the OSCE pull to get more progress in Kazakhstan regarding these reforms?  If major progress is not shown, should the Chairmanship be revoked?  What consequences would that have?  Where is Kazakhstan heading toward as a nation/government?  Toward the West?  East?  The answers to most of these are murky.  In fact, just as Kazakhstan is moving toward ever so slightly democratic reforms, its government is extending its reach over its increasingly powerful energy sector, buying up companies and pushing around foreign investors in ways that remind one of Gazprom.  What do these actions portend?

It’s that time of year again. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization Annual Summit! The meeting will be held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan on August 28, and foreign ministers from all six of its member states have already concluded a meeting going over a few topics to be discussed at the larger summit. The group of ministers decided that no new members, not Iran, Pakistan, Mongolia, or India (all have Observer Status), will be enshrined, but that a SCO Dialogue Partners mechanism will be instituted to increase cooperation between the organization and these important neighbors. During last years meeting, the main topic of media/geopolitical debate was the appearance of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad, who brought with him Iran’s ‘right to have nuclear energy’ and his own bombastic style of speaking and railing against the US. Well, he’s back for more. Iran will lose some spotlight this year, as Russia’s actions in Georgia and China’s Olympic spectacle will take center stage once again. Both dominating members of this alliance will come with their chests bursting.

The debate of the SCO’s nature and actual power, and how these may affect US policy and influence in Central Asia, have been major topics since its existence in 2001. Is it a rival, partner, both? How well does it function? Does it provide benefits to its CA members or does it only provide a venue for China and Russia to dominate them? Well, the host of Summit, Tajik President Rahmon seems to be quite excited about the upcoming meeting and the SCO’s accomplishments so far. “The SCO has demonstrated specific results in the years of its existence, and its future is cloudless.” Rahmon went on to discuss how important its relations with Russia and China were, which is indeed obviously true. The US State Department view of the SCO is not as glowing, but not fearful either, at least not in the words of Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia Evan A. Feigenbaum. He acknowledges that the US does not have a clear idea of what the SCO is and does, but is quick to assert that it ‘is no Warsaw Pact’ and that there are many shared interests between the US and the Organization’s professed goals: border security, economic development, Afghanistan stability, and defeating radical terrorist elements. However, Feigenbaum draws a firm line when it comes to supporting the region’s smaller states’ sovereign and independent rights to look in all ‘four directions of the compass’ for economic and strategic opportunities, i.e. he wants the states to be able to look and work with the West, not just be dominated by Russia or China.

A perennial concern for the growth of the SCO as a regional and international powerhouse is the relationship, or lack thereof, between Russia and China. The two have been getting along nicely in past years, and have used the SCO to work out many differences between the two Great Powers, especially regarding border demarcations. But man, oh man, do they have some fundamental differences, as any two large nations would who share an extensive border. In fact, they both desire to use the SCO to cooperate in CA, but also to get their individual interests in the region’s resources further embedded. In many ways, its pipeline vs. pipeline and gas deal vs. gas deal between the two. But there have been very few times of crisis/conflict between the two growing powers and the SCO probably deserves some credit for this smooth management.

So how do you see the SCO changing, evolving in the recent geopolitical context? Are its motivations the same? Is its power the same? Does it help the CA states autocrats keep their hold on power? How will the recent Georgian-Russian conflict and the terrorist attacks in Xinjiang Province affect this year’s meeting and future policies of the organization? What about the Observer States? What about them? Should they allow Iran in and receive energy help but diplomatic pain? Is there any chance in Nirvana that India might become a Full Member?

On a less geopolitically fun note, The Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) will have an important summit on September 25 featuring high level officials. Here is a short article discussing the organization’s positive elements and some of its challenges in being an effective force for economic development in the region.

Two interrelated items today for your viewing pleasure.

Descent Into Chaos
We have already discussed Ahmed Rashid’s new book Descent into Chaos: The US and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia, but in light of changing events, Musharraf’s resignation (here is an editorial by Rashid about Musharraf’s leaving), the worsening situation in Afghanistan, and especially in light of yesterday’s post which questioned if the US/West were really up to the challenge of nation building Afghanistan, we should take another look. Here is a short BBC interview with Rashid and the New York Times Book Review of Descent. Rashid sees Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia as places lacking effective government controls, a dearth of opportunities for its citizens, bereft of democratic institutions and practices, and lastly, a region embedded with radical elements that pose a tremendous security risk. Basically, Chaos. Rashid has many people to blame for this, Bush, Clinton, Rumsfeld, Musharraf, Pakistan democratic leaders who filled their own coffers instead of the state’s democratic institutions, the Kashmir conflict, just to name a few, but what I want to focus on is what to do now to stop this ‘chaos’ and create some form of stability. What is the US’s role? Should it even have a role? Even with all his criticisms of the US’s policies in the region, Rashid does not want us to go away. He advocates a greater military commitment and even more importantly a greater amount of US/West aid to help reconstruct Afghan’s infrastructure to create ’some degree of economic security.’ He argues that the national programs, such as rebuilding schools and health clinics are having a positive effect, they just need more money and focus. This of course sounds viable and may indeed have positive effects on the nation’s stability, but it is indeed tough to hear how bad things are, and to not feel ‘is this sacrifice in blood and treasure really worth it? Are we accomplishing anything long lasting?’ I believe the US/NATO presence is indeed a positive force in Afghanistan and the region as a whole, but I just want to layout just how difficult the situation is the world is facing in this troubled nation and region. There will be no quick fixes (like 2 more brigades).

China’s Jihad?

Though things have settled down during Olympics, there has still been a decent amount of coverage of Uighur separatist/Islamic situation in China’s Xinjiang Province. In fact, the view of Xinjiang as an ethnic situation, and one that should garner US/World attention and support like the Tibetans, or the view of the situation that sees Islamic radicals, related to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and therefore unsympathetic to the US, have been interesting to see. In the first week of the Olympics the coverage of the Uighurs was fairly positive, focusing on China’s slow destruction and encroachment of their culture and land, but after the border patrol attack in Kashgar and the bombings of government and business buildings a few days later, I have starting to see articles more wary, and even combative, of what is happening. William Foreman of the AP wrote a rather balanced piece, but he definitely paints the Uighurs as supportive of the recent terror attacks against the Chinese government. Kathy Shaidle of FrontPageMagainze.com wrote a scathing piece about these ‘Islamic terrorists and their apologists,’ and brings up the whether the US can stomach working with an autocratic regime in Beijing to stop Islamic terrorism (yes, they already have, but to a marginal extent). Lastly, the Financial Times produced a thorough piece analyzing the extent of radicalism in the province, coming to the conclusion that the situation is rather nuanced, with not much evidence showcasing widespread support of violence, but also a people that are unhappy (though not all) with the Chinese government’s role in their lives. Here is a quote that most accurately sums up the situation.

Prof Gladneya, of Pomona College in California, says evidence of sympathy for terrorist groups in Pakistan or elsewhere remains thin. “There has definitely been a rise in Islamic conservatism in Xinjiang,” he says. “But I have not seen signs of real support for global jihad or for Islamic radicalism.”

An interesting test to see how the US/world views the Uighur separatists compared to the Tibetan separatists would be to gage their reaction to a Turkish man who set himself on fire during a Uighur protest outside of the Chinese embassy in Ankara on the day of the Olympic Opening Ceremonies. Does this incident make one feel sympathetic, fearful, both?

(Photo Source: New York Times; Reuters)

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)