Central Asia

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.

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)

Well it looks like I didn’t live up to my promise, but better late than never right?  The Olympics in China have made quite a splash; in the pool, in the Caucasus’s, Bush’s speeches and church visit, and in the Xinjiang Province, where on Sunday a multitude of attacks occurred all over the city of Kuqa, killing around 11 people, injuring many more, and leading to even greater instability and fear in the region.  The group of attackers targeted government and private buildings, used vehicles, grenades, and most disturbing apparently suicide bombings in the incident.  This following the killing of 16 border patrol guards, two bus bombings, and a video threat.

The Xinjiang Province’s Uighur Muslims have definitely overshadowed the Tibetans on the Olympic world stage.   This was clearly in evidence when I saw an NBC special piece on the Xinjiang Province and its Uighur people on the air Sunday night.  The segment was informative, as I’m sure most Americans have never even heard of the region, and discussed the influx of Han Chinese people and culture in the region and how this was causing great material and psychological distress to the Uighurs.  The report was overall sympathetic to their cause and largely stayed away from painting the region as terror-ridden, though the story was preceded by talk of the recent attacks there.  (I tried to get video, but was unable, anybody find a link please send it to me and I’ll post it)

Still it must be acknowledged that the province is getting this type of attention because of these violent incidents.  And though I previously wrote pieces stating the strong possibility that China was just using terrorist claims and fears to further their grip on the region, these incidents no doubt firmly showcase a security threat to the Chinese government, the Olympics, and the region at large.

The strategic intelligence analyst group Stratfor recently wrote an article discussing the extremism in Xinjiang, its history and how it has evolved to what we’re seeing today, and it’s not pretty.  Analyst Rodger Baker argues that he sees emerging ‘a Turkistan Islamist movement with links in Central Asia, stretching back to Afghanistan and Pakistan, blending Taliban training, transnational jihadist experiential learning, Hizb al-Tahrir (HT) frameworks and recruiting, and Central Asian ties for support and shelter.’  Rodger calls the extremist movement a ‘different entity’ than what China has faced in the past.  The article discusses the possible link between the ETIM and Turkistan Islamic Party, especially regarding a video from last April, and most provocatively and probably correctly he argues that this new Uighur movement is blending the HT  and Taliban ideologies with their underlying principles of Turkistan independence, in other words the Uighur movement is becoming more connected with region’s other Islamic militants.  It almost reminds me of how the US/Pakistan helped foment religious radicalism in Pakistan/Afghanistan Pashtuns to defeat the Soviets and then now dealing a force that is ‘blowing back.’  In other words, a mostly ethnic conflict or society is being turned more religious and this may have radical implications, as we might be seeing right now.  I don’t want to get ahead of myself though here (I probably already did), as this situation is very complicated.  What do you think?  How should one view these recent attacks in Xinjiang?  How would you view them if you were the Chinese government?  How would the Taliban view them?

(Photo: Stratfor)

The European Union’s ‘Strategy for a New Partnership with Central Asia‘ has now passed its 1st year of existence and therefore must immediately be judged!  Here are its original stated goals and origins and here is a one year assessment by ISN’s Robert M Cutler.  Now the ’strategy’ is a decade long process that hopefully will go on even longer and its ambitions must be considered rather large considering Europe’s presence in the region has been scant for years, but it is not without use to see how its doing so far.

Cutler calls the project’s a ’slow start,’ but one that has shown potential and should have mutual benefits.  The results have been ‘modest’ in his eyes as steps have been made, but it is too early to see any real change/progress involving relations between the two regions and concrete development on the ground.  Cutler is correct in noting that the EU has made major attempts to diplomatically and strategically engage Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, but is also correct in noting that nothing concrete has come from their talks so far.  Though he fails to mention that in April of this year, an EU delegation to Turkmenistan seemed to come close to a gas deal, circumventing Russia with the Trans-Caspian pipeline, though nothing has become official as of yet.  Cutler gives the EU credit for pushing a degree of democratization in Kazakhstan, using their leverage concerning Nazarbayev’s 2010 OSCE presidency.  However, this influence is difficult to truly measure.  Concerning Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the former has been given poverty reduction to support 100,000 people in the southern part of the country and in the latter, the EU has pledged to help alleviate Tajik’s border patrol and drug trafficking problems, especially on its Afghan border.  In the end, Cutler is right in warning against the ‘Strategy’ becoming too disjointed, piecemeal, with individual policies spread throughout, and also acknowledges the EU’s difficult task of trying to garner influence in a region already beset by great powers Russia, China, and the US.

Two quick Euro items to point out; Though much of Europe {though not all} has been resistant to a greater presence in Afghanistan and the greater Central Asian region, France and its executive have made some positive, strong moves of late and its Foreign Minister Kouchner has ‘called on the international community to enhance security efforts in Central Asia and increase engagement in Afghanistan.’  Secondly, a new German embassy was opened in Tajikistan in late July with German ambassador stating ‘this proves that Germany will further remain a reliable partner for Tajikistan, and do everything possible to further expand bilateral cooperation within the framework of the strategy of the European Union.’
If all goes to plan, I will do a post later today about NBC’s coverage of the Xinjiang Province and the latest spasm of violence that has plagued the region.

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy the Opening Ceremonies and have a great weekend!

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

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

President Bush to the Rescue? Kinda.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.