Central Asia

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 past few weeks we have discussed Russian relations and influence in Central Asia in the prism of the recent Georgia-Russian conflict, and for good reason, as the war sent vibrations across the geopolitical landscape, and was especially relevant to former Soviet Republics such as our CA states.  However, before the early August invasions I had come across a few CA-Russian connected stories, that we must never the less view in a new light.

The first story is a report published just days ago, but about a process that has been ongoing for years.  The Heritage Foundation’s Helle Dale and Oliver Horn discussed the retreat of the US-sponsored Voice of America radio programs throughout the Caucasus, Eastern Europe and Central Asia in past years.  On this site, I commonly use Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, an affiliate US-sponsored radio program, sources and advocate its positive ’soft power’ impact, so this report intrigued and disturbed me.  Dale and Horn assert that poor funding, a concentration of funding going to the Middle East and Asia, outsourcing of broadcasts to semi-private entities with ‘dubious’ track records, and Russian supported outright hostility and intimidation have caused the Voice of America and its local partners to close shop in Central Asia.  The report also mentions that Radio Free Europe was a ‘vulnerable’ target for the Kremlin-led crackdown.  Real quick the goal or mandate for these US-sponsored radio programs are to ‘explain US foreign policy, present responsible discussions and opinion on US policy, and offer a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.’

What to do?  Congress can step in and has to raise and keep funding.  Just last month, the Senate Appropriations Committee explicitly funded Voice of America programming in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.  Dale and Horn smartly recommend establishing a doctrine to help explain the purpose and coordinate the specific role of each foreign radio program, reforming the nascent Broadcasting Board of Governors, and increasing and ensuring that regions outside the Middle East receive stable funding.  We all know here how important the Central Asian region is to US foreign policy and the power that the Voice of America can have in places of the world in need of accurate and different viewpoints.  How do you view its influence in the CA and the world?  Does Russia have good reason to attempt to shut it down or is US stepping on others toes just to promote our own interests?

The next few Russian-CA items are military/security based: According to the Russian newspaper Commersant and Russian Air Force Commander-in-Chief Alex Zelin, Russia plans on establishing their own anti-missile system in the Caucasus and Central Asian regions. Zelin stated; ‘Previous cooperation on missile defense systems has proven that the joint regional anti-missile system established by members of the Commonwealth of Independent States should be expanded.’  The joint missile defense system currently includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine.  Will this plan come to fruition or is it just bluster in response to US-missile defenses in Poland and Czech Republic?

CSTO Secretary General Nikolai Bordyuzha announced that the organization will set up a joint task force in Central Asia to ‘become a restraining military and political factor in the region, taking an uneasy situation in Afghanistan into account.  The CSTO already has several military groupings in the region, and along with Russia’s several military bases stationed there, and similar endeavors of the SCO, it appears Russia is attempting to solidify its position in the region as concretely as possible.

Lastly in regards to Russian-led security outfits; Russian President Medvedev has outlined a new security organization to deal with issues such as terrorism and illegal migration spaning from Europe to Asia.  Moscow has reportedly invited all NATO and EU nations, all its ex-Soviet states, the SCO, and China to a large conference to discuss the enterprise for next year.  The aims and plausability of such an expansive security grouping is far-fetched, but the proposal raises several interesting questions of Russia’s current stance in the region and world and its desires as well.

Finally, over a month or two ago, we discussed the rise in violent crime against immigrants, those mainly with darker skin from Central Asia, in Russia.  Well it appears the situation has not gotten better, but that some good news might be on the horizon.  A big issue was whether the Russian state would crackdown on these racist criminals and in this there is one sign of hope.  In late July, a skinhead group was arrested and brought to trial for the murder of 20 migrants.  These perpetrators blatantly attacked their victims in public and used video to catalog their crimes.  The Russian government must show its people and the world that this type of behavior to minorities is unacceptable.

Continuing yesterday’s discussion of the SCO’s joint declaration being very neutral when it came to defending Russia’s future and past actions in Georgia; What does this mean for Russia? What does this say about China?  And What does it show about the four Central Asian states in the group and their position in the world?  As I kept thinking about this ‘declaration’ and its timidity toward anything that would help Russia’s world stance on the Georgian issue, the more I saw it as a great blow to their strategic and diplomatic standing.  Here was an autocratic friend, one with tremendously rising world power, who had backed Russia on US influence in CA, East European missile defense, the expansion of NATO, among other items, telling Russia to ’solve existing problems peacefully, through dialogue, and to make efforts facilitating reconciliation and talks.’  China, it appears, was not going to join this fight.  As was mentioned yesterday, China has their own separatists to worry about and do not desire confrontation with the West as they fear losing the economic engines that keep their nation humming.  But China’s stance goes back further, to Deng Xiaoping’s ‘peaceful’ or ‘quiet’ rise.  The discipline of the Chinese Communist Party to not get entangled in foreign affairs is amazingly consistent and has shown to be in most cases good policy (However it is not the policy and action of a true world power).

So Russia lost out on China’s support, while surely they can garner the backing of their former satiellites and energy partners, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan?  But these four joined China in the neutral joint declaration, all failed to mention the Georgia conflict in their open statements, and ignoring Medvedev’s request, none of them have recognised S. Ossetia or Abkhazia.  Here is a quote from Nikolay Petrrov, an expert in Russian politics with the Carnegie Moscow Center;

“It would have been very important to have gotten direct support from these states, which very closely work and depend on Russia, but Moscow didn’t get any support aside from general statements,” said Nikolay Petrov.  He added that the Central Asian states’ refusal to overtly back Moscow was an indication of the “limits of Russia’s influence.”

China no doubt gave these states cover to disobey Moscow, but their interests in not alienating the US/West were also shown in this lack of action and defense of Russia.  In today’s geopolitics, the CA states have more avenues to turn to for support and customers to sell to than just Moscow and this SCO action proves it.

So this morning, I expected to see Western editorials discussing Russia’s growing isolation in this conflict, but instead I found, once again, numerous pieces about a New World Order and the Return of the Cold War.  But with the US remaining diplomatically strong, if in no other area, and the EU discussing sanctions, and the fact that only rogue regimes have voiced true support for Russian actions, one has to call into question the success of Georgian-Russia conflict for Moscow.  I’m not trying to say that the move was not a strategic success in many fronts, it was and I have discussed this, but its long term effects and gains appear to be in question.

Just what did Russia get out of this? We know they got to hurt, but maybe not finish off, their Georgian rival.  We know they have gained consternation and isolation from and in the world.  We know that all former Soviet states have grown more fearful and may become a bit more pliant to Moscow.   But we also know that Ukraine, Poland, and the CA states have other patrons and defenders in which to turn to.  Poland signed a missile/defense deal with the US days after the conflict and Kyrgyzstan has a US air base right next to the one they host Russia in as well.  China’s power in the CA (as they have made yet another business deal), to Russia’s chagrin, is strong and growing.   The EU, though strategically and militarily weak, has shown some resolve in making matters difficult for Russia to move ahead after this conflict.

So can the West feel a little bit more secure in their 21st century liberal, globalized world order?  Well Russia reminded us all that states do matter, military power does matter, strategic spheres do matter, but their growing isolation portrays a world that is no longer very comfortable with good old power politics, to Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev’s chagrin.

(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.

Good Friday, Friday Good. Today I want to take some time out and showcase some of the excellent work done by other FPA writers and bloggers that either directly or indirectly affect Central Asia, most involving the Georgia-Russia conflict.

FPA contributer Marco Vicenzino has written two solid analyses of a Reassertive Russia Part I, Part II. Vincenzino discusses Russia’s agenda before and after the conflict and goes over possible US responses, much ado about nothing. He takes a realist perspective of the situation as is largely on point.

Joel Davis from the FPA blog US Role in the World discussed US options in the conflict.

Vadim Nikitin’s Russia blog is a must-read resource on the recent conflict and Russia’s role in other former Soviet States and in the world. He has covered reasons for the conflict, US media bias against Russia, Medvedev’s popularity boost, to name just a few.

Two other blogs to check out covering the conflict are Mark Dillen’s Caucasus and US-China Trade, which provides some analysis of China’s view and response to the situation.

Karin Esposito of the Religion and Politics blog quickly analyzed the recent terror attacks in China’s Xinjiang Province during the Olympics, discussing whether the movement is religiously motivated rather than politically desperate.

And for those who just can’t get enough of Russia-Georgia analysis - Here are some of the more provocative editorials I have read, interestingly most of them take on a strong realist and deferential view of Russia’s renewal, and I don’t blame them as that is what the facts are the ground suggest, but surely this conflict was not a KO for US influence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.  NYT US Sees Much to Fear in a Hostile Russia, WSJ Russia Still a Hungry Empire, Washington Post Is Ossetia Essential?, Washington Post Russia’s Flashback to 1968, The Brookings Institute’s Johannes F. Linn, a Central Asian expert, War in Georgia- End of an Era, Beginning a New Cold War?, and here are a couple articles discussing the illiberal nature of this conflict, Slate’s Christopher Hitchens South Ossetia Isn’t Kosovo, and Trudy Rubin’s There’s No Excusing Russia’s Attack.  Well I hope you find some of this interesting and thought-provoking.  Have a great weekend.

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.

Thankfully, a cease-fire in the Russian-Georgian conflict over the South Ossetia and Abkhazia territories has been agreed upon by both states, unfortunately fighting still seems to be occurring in the Georgian city of Gori. The conflict in Georgia has ramifications in Central Asia and for its nations’ governments in many important ways. As former Soviet Republics, it cannot be comforting to watch their former ‘master of autonomy’ militarily invade another of their ilk, and one so close by. And though, the Georgian-Russian conflict has much to do with specific territorial grievances, one must assume that this is an overall Russian sign of its power in the region, a signal of its ability and ‘will to act’ in what it considers its sphere of influence, which includes the CA states. Democratic progress is also threatened by this move, as Georgia had made remarkable progress in this area since the Rose Revolution, and now its future is in doubt. There is also the matter of oil and gas supplies, as the BTC pipeline bringing gas to the West, circumventing Russia, and another pipeline from Kazakhstan may be threatened by Russia’s advance. In fact, the BTC pipeline was reportedly bombed by Russia several times, but supposedly undamaged. Future pipelines that would go from Central Asian states, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and into Georgia or its neighbor Azerbaijan, for instance the Trans-Caspian and Nabucco pipelines, which would flow toward Europe, now have to be considered in jeopardy with Russia’s destabilization of the region, and possible more control over pipeline routes due to its successful military campaign. This conflict and its implications are varied and great, and today I would like to provide a mass link dump of interesting pieces regarding the war, and let you comment on the past week’s event’s importance and ramifications for Central Asia and the broader region.

A short background piece.

Geopolitical Analyses - 1. Stratfor - ‘The Russian-Georgian War and the Balance of Power‘ 2. Agnyan Minchev’s analysis for Focus Information Agency 3. David Dickson on the Oil/Gas Supply Implications (short and sweet) 4. WSJ Gerald F. Seib’s argument of a ‘New World Order’ (not very convincing) 5. Chrystia Freeland’s ‘New Age of Authoritarianism‘

US/West Policy Recommendations/Calls to Action - 1. Gary Schmitt and Mauro de Lorenzo prod the West to stand up to Russia 2. NYT Editorial Board lambasting Russia and calling for diplomatic action 3. Savante E. Cornell’s ‘Don’t Blame the Victim‘ 4. And for a Russian perspective, here is former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev ‘Path to Peace‘

Months ago we discussed who would be in charge, Putin or Medvedev; well it appears that Mr. At the Battle Front with My Sleaves Rolled Up Putin is the one calling the shots in this war - 1. NYT ‘Russia, Putin, Assert Power‘ 2. WSJ’s ‘Vladimir Bonaparte‘

Lastly, what did the US President and the two wanna-bes say, and what did people say about what they said - 1. President Bush’s main statement, which got tougher and tougher 2. McCain’s comments, includes nice summary of the situation’s history and why it is important to the American people, discusses importance of democracy, and earlier on this blog we discussed McCain’s hard line toward Russia, for instance kicking them out of the G8, well more of this has been talked about of late considering Russia’s recent actions 3. Obama’s comments, measured and realistic, emphasized the United Nations’ peacekeeping ability and that we need to stay engaged with Russia 4. Here’s an analysis by the Sun Times comparing both Obama and McCain’s positions, judging by the title, they liked McCain’s position better ‘McCain, not Obama, was right about Georgia’

Your Comments, Analysis, and Questions about how this war affects Central Asia and the great power geopolitics are requested.