The US may be allowed to return to the Uzbek base of Karshi-Khanabad (K2) soon. They were evicted in 2005 after the massacre in Andijon in May and consequent international criticism. In recent weeks, Washington has spoken with Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan about the possibility of a base, even after arguing that a base was not necessary to supply Afghanistan.

Washington is also looking to work more closely with Azerbaijan. Azeri private companies have agreed to transport an increasing amount of cargo. The military is not involved but may be at some point. After Azerbaijan learned that Russia provided arms to Armenia, Russia has a weaker hand to play.

More than securing a return to the base, the US is looking for much more participation from Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan in supplying Afghanistan.

Good news for both states as building begins for a railroad to carry non-lethal NATO supplies through Russia to Afghanistan. Radio Liberty reports that “The cost of building the 146-kilometer link is estimated at $131 million.” Let’s hope the building continues at a reasonable pace and leads to development on both sides of the border. Tajikistan’s economy is only worsening and it needs all the development it can get.

As this blog has been insisting, regional ties are the answer to many of Central Asia’s problems, rather than the West or even Russia. This Radio Liberty article describes how the State Department groups the post-Soviet Central Asian states together with the South Asian states in a long-term effort to promote ties between US-friendly states like India and Kazakhstan in opposition to a Russia orientated space. This is interesting and ambitious, though I am not sure Russia’s importance can ever be truly superseded for its neighboring states. 

Still, plans for Kazakhstan providing uranium for India’s nuclear power plants and progress on a Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline are exciting. Any de-leveraging of Russian power in the region is a good sign for the countries. As the article concludes, Kazakhstan will chair the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) in 2010 and India continues to search for energy sources, so the State Department’s vision may indeed be anticipating the links between Central and South Asia. However, the article fails to see that it is precisely the political vacuum in Pakistan and Afghanistan that makes Russia the stronger geopolitical partner for a long time to come.

Olivier Roy. That’s right Olivier Roy was at UCSD’s Political Science Department today and I was able to sneak in and listen to his lecture and Q & A.

Mr. Roy, a Frenchman, is one of the most distinguished Western scholars of Islam. He has studied and worked for the United Nations and French foreign ministry in Tajikistan and Afghanistan and has written several influential books about political Islam. Unfortunately, his talk at UCSD was not very substantial. He just discussed certain aspects of Islam, its relations within Europe, and the intriguing topic of converts. He spent a considerable amount of time trying to discredit the Clash of Civilizations thesis, mainly by arguing that for it to exist there would need to be one Islam and one West, and each just don’t exist. Relations are more complicated. He provocatively argued that states should no longer speak of ‘Islam’ in foreign ministries, just individual states and regions. In other words, instead of Obama trying to reach out to all of the Muslim world, Roy believes he should just concentrate on small, individual parts, like Egypt, Iraq’s shia, or Hamas.

Roy spent 1993-1995 monitoring human rights in Tajikistan and shortly discussed how much of his work concerned religious persecution. He went on to talk about the growth of Christianity in Tajikistan, but unfortunately I couldn’t follow this short exchange because of his strong accent. Regarding negotiations with the Taliban, Roy was for doing so, but that most segments of the Taliban had not formulated real tangible demands or issues, to be a fair partner. He also quickly stated that the recent Pakistani-Swat Sharia truce that I discussed two days ago, was a blatant sign of weakness by the Islamabad government. Roy stated that ‘they lost.’ He called this type of dual system of government unworkable. Not surprisingly, there was no time for him to come up with a solution for the Pakistan government and society

In any case, Roy has written and spoken some wise words when it comes to Islam and the West. I found this 2005 op-ed of his that describes the bankrupt nature of most Islamic extremists in one short page. And this Charlie Rose interview with Roy covers much ground. In it Roy even states that he supports the Iraq war as a way of spreading democracy throughout the region, BUT only if the US follows through with a long term commitment to its growth. I wanted to ask Mr. Roy if he thought President Obama was ready to carry that policy forth, all indications are otherwise, but alas I did not get the chance to ask him as my mouth was full of the delicious chocolate chip cookies USCD provided.

Here are some of Roy’s Central Asia/Afghanistan relevant work:

Islam and Resistance in Afghanistan

-On Google Book

A summary of his Islamic Movements in Central Asia: Between Nationalism and Internationalism

The New Central Asia: The Creation of Nations

Just as I was discussing on my other blog the Pakistani state’s inability to control or effectively coexist with the Islamic culture and religion within its borders, Islamabad announced a new deal allowing the Swat region to be ruled by Sharia law. This is yet another deal the Pakistani government has made with one of its tribal region’s that it cannot control, yet alone govern. The Taliban are strong in Swat and in return for allowing them to basically ‘govern themselves’ they have promised the Pakistan government to cease violence, at least against the Pakistani government and military.

Pakistani Taliban punished a man accused of impersonating one of them to extort money in Swat Valley-European Pressphoto Agency

When I mention that the Pakistani government ‘control’ all segments of Islam within their boundaries, I am not meaning suppress or destroy the religion or culture. Far from it. A state needs to have legitimacy for it to rule effectively, and it is instances like this latest Swat-Sharia deal that undermine Pakistani hopes for this to occur. The situation is very complicated and autonomous regions in countries is not unheard of and can be stable, but this most recent victory for violent Taliban forces is just the latest in a string of loses for the Pakistani government and military. Sectarian forces of Islam carry more weight than the government can and it is creating great violence and instability for the whole region. Of course, Islam is far from the only problem and cause of the recent unrest in Pakistan as ethnic, social, and economic issues are vibrant throughout the country, especially in its northwest border area with Afghanistan.

The United States and the Karzai-led Afghan government will soon be entering into serious negotiations with certain Taliban elements that seem to be willing to do just that, negotiate, and there is much they can learn from Pakistan’s experiences. There will be a fine line between granting autonomy to a region, where Sharia law supercedes all state decisions, and creating enough wiggle room for local tribes to have a legitimate say in the way they are governed. In Pakistan, the Taliban have shown that once they obtain power in a region, and this becomes legitimatized by a deal with the Pakistani government, they have not only begun to rule the area like brutal totalitarians, but that they do not stop there, and their ambitions have led them deeper and deeper into Pakistan’s other regions.

What will Afghanistan’s future be? One where Islam is crucial, but partnered with the state? Or one where sectarian groups representing Islam, including radical Taliban groups, seek to dominate certain regions or the whole state?

I don’t want to beat a dead horse here, but there continues to be breaking news regarding the closure of the US Manas base in Kyrgyzstan. Alexander Cooley at the Herald Tribune has an inside view of the US displacement from the air base and argues that the US did the prudent thing by walking away. Cooley reports that for the first few years of US usage of the base, former Kyrgyz dictator Akayev would just collect and funnel all the US financial rent payments for his inner circle, unfortunately not surprising. What is most disturbing is that it appears current President Bakiyev was basically doing the same thing.

It is a fact that rent payments kept on getting higher, a logical business move by the Kyrgyz leaders, and with Russia as a competitor the US would have probably been stuck in ever rising financial commitments to maintain the base. If the US folded under pressure during this recent Moscow loan/aid takeover of Kyrgyzstan, it would have likely opened itself up to similar blackmail efforts at its other bases throughout the globe.

In other breaking news regarding the base issue, it appears that the US was actually preparing to enlarge the Manas air base in the very near future. The US was contacting contractors for a $100 million project expanding landing sites and building an area where explosive cargo could be loaded/unloaded. So this is indeed a serious strategic lose for the US/NATO Afghan war effort. Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and maybe even Turkmenistan will be on the US base search radar.

Friday Culture

Distinguished travel writer Jeffrey Tayler has made an adventurous trip from Moscow’s Red Square, through the CA states, all the way to Beijing’s Tiananmen Square.  He spends most of his time in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.  Here are two reviews of his book ‘Murderers in Mausoleums’: Washington Post, Seattle Times.

Here is another travel tale of a husband and wife (the wife is Alice Albinia, a writer) traveling by train from Germany all the way to China’s Xinjiang Province, where they spend time in Urumqi and Kashgar.  Sounds like a blast!

Lastly, here is an old regional myth about the Golden Horse of Central Asia.

It is amazing how much the US media is now concentrating on the war in Afghanistan as the war in Iraq is dropping further and further onto the back pages. This also appears to be true in looking at US government entities as Afghan envoy Richard Holbrooke is seemingly everywhere and we do not even have an official Iraqi ambassador yet.  There is also much more talk about an Afghan troop surge than an Iraqi troop withdrawal.  Obama’s emphasis on the one conflict over the other is apparently having a major impact on the press and government, if not the actual situation on the Afghan ground.  Or does this shift come more from changes on the Afghan and Iraqi ground, with Iraqi becoming more stable and Afghanistan moving in the other direction?

Another interesting aspect of this Afghan media and attention ’surge’ is the dire descriptions and warnings about the conflict.  Now, I have been asking for a more realistic view and focus on the situation for over a year, but I do not think we should be damping down on our prospects to such a degree that we undermine the still emerging Afghan democratic government.  Here are a couple examples of the newfound media and political emphasis on Afghanistan:

Senator John Kerry’s ‘Race Against Time‘

The National Interest’s ‘Going South’

Holbrooke in Afghanistan in 2006

Newly appointed Afghanistan/Pakistan US ‘representative’, which gives him a bit more power than an ‘envoy’, stated during a Munich security conference that the war in Afghanistan will be a ‘long and difficult struggle,’ one which is 'tougher than Iraq.’  Not exactly breaking news, but it's important to know where Mr. Holbrooke stands and how he sees the conflict. He also stated that there would be ‘no Dayton Accords,’ a reference to his work in the 1990's on the Balkan crisis.

Holbrooke is an intriguing fellow and has had a close relationship with Secretary State Hilary Clinton for some years. Here is a NY Times profile of the jetsetting diplomat and a Clinton press conference discussing his role in what Obama is calling once again the central part of the US war against terrorism.

Holbrooke has already embarked on a ‘listening tour’ of the region where he met with several Paki and Afghani government and military officials, but I have not heard what his next moves will be. I imagine he will be involved in any strategy involving negotiating with the Taliban and in soothing Paki-US relations when Pakistan's sovereign territory may be ‘compromised’ by US military forces. I also imagine Holbrooke will be utilized to garner more troops, resources, and action from NATO's European members as he is well-respected by most in the continent.

(Photo Source: New York Times)

Well, it looks like the Kyrgyz government has indeed decided to officially order the removal of American forces from the Manas air base.  US officials assert that negotiations were still on going, but Kyrgyz officials stated that the deal was as good as done.  It appears that Moscow has had its way as their large loan and aid payments to Bakiyev's regime, combined with what appears to be declining Kyrgyz-US relations, has pushed Bishkek into Russia's sphere once again. Alexander Lukin argues that it was mainly domestic reasons why Bakiyev and the Kyrgyz government decided to turn their backs on the Americans.  He cites growing civilian dissent against the foreign troops, pollution, an incident where a Kyrgyz truck driver was killed by a US soldier, and finally just the plain lack of progress in stabilizing Afghanistan and curtailing the drug trade and Islamic extremism. The Obama administration and US military are still no doubt trying to renegotiate this deal and probably offering the cash strapped Bishkek government more money and aid, but it will likely not be enough.  In fact, Russia's loan and aid could have come with the condition that US forces were booted out, making a deal near impossible to work out without Bakiyev turning his back on Moscow. It has been reported that part of Moscow's loan will be to build a new, much needed hydroplant in Kyrgyzstan and I just can't help but think that if the US much earlier put aid forth in support of such a project, things may have turned out differently.

It is being reported that the US Joint Chiefs of Staff will issue a report recommending that the Obama administration lower its expectations for a democratic Afghanistan and instead concentrate on regional stability and defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban. I have not seen the report myself, but Politico's David Cloud asserts that the report by the JCS has come to the conclusion that the Bush administration's emphasis on creating a free, open Afghan society and governance may be too difficult to obtain in a timely manner and should be looked at as a ‘vision for the future’ and not as a ‘goal.’

The report calls for ‘narrowing’ the US/NATO goals to ‘just’ defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda, uprooting their sanctuaries in Pakistan, and ‘ensuring’ regional stability. The thought that these are ‘narrow’ goals is laughable considering how challenging they have and will continue to be. Nevertheless, this is definitely a more realist outlook than trying to obtain a democratic and liberal style governance and society in the Afghan state.

This report, which should be out in the open and on the president's desk soon, comes at a crucial time as the Obama administration is preparing to send around 12,000 more troops into the conflict.  Obama, who seems like he has realist, pragmatic leanings, may be sympathetic to this plan and will accordingly direct these incoming troops to these newly-focused goals.   It is also well-known that Obama staked much of his campaign rhetoric on changing US-Afghan War policy and putting the conflict to the forefront of American foreign policy.  We’ll have to see how Obama, Petraeus, Bob Gates all see this plan in the next few weeks.

The war in Afghanistan has been going on for nearly 8 years now, (for the people of Afghanistan, a lot longer), and though I don't see the American people wavering too much in support of the effort, there is definitely those who feel like some progress needs to be shown. Will a concentration of forces, resources, and strategy centered on the specific goals of stopping Al Qaeda and Taliban's refuge in Pakistan and a lessening of talk and efforts for state building bring some tangible results to show the American people and the world. And maybe this will allow more breathing space and time for the Afghan government to grow in strength. Can the US have its cake (regional security) and eat it too (Afghan/Pakistan democracy)?

What goals should the US emphasis in Afghanistan? Would the JCS recommendations undermine the democratic gains already made in the country and possible in the surrounding region?

(Photo Source: AP)