This thought came to me after reading Clifford J. Levy’s excellent article detailing the Russian election monitoring process in former Soviet states, such as Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan.  In the report, Levy details how the Kremlin is countering Western efforts to judge and monitor elections in the world to see how they measure up, that is how free and fair are they.  This is mainly done by the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).  Moscow now sends their own election observers, who Levy showcases as just there to put a legitimate stamp on otherwise corrupt and unfair elections.

Why would Moscow want to spend the money and time with their own monitors?  For one thing it gives a countering voice to the OSCE, an organization which called Russia’s own election in 2004, ‘far from fair.’ The process also protects the authoritarian regimes still loyal and dependent on Moscow, such as Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.  The Kremlin will create an illusionary vision of a fair and free election process to legitimize the process and government in the eyes of the nation’s citizens and its own.

Another reason I believe Moscow makes the attempt to legitimize these corrupt election processes is because of democratic norms that have started to pervade the international system.  Levy discusses how these former Soviet dictators, Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan and Lukashenko in Belarus, desire to be seen as ‘democratic’ to the world.  Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan have been brutal dictatorships, but their leaders still hold elections where they receive nearly 90% or greater of the vote.  Why?  They want their the world to see them as legitimate and they think any election process, any at all, will give them more political weight at home and abroad.  Of course there are strategic reasons, such as building closer relations with the democratic West, which helps these leaders diversify their economic portfolio, but that can’t be the only reason.
Back to Russia’s role in these former Soviet states: Moscow desires stability and influence in their ‘near abroad’ and the war in Georgia and recent gas cutoffs to Ukraine have shown that they will push their neighbors around if this is challenged.  Scholar Stephen Blank’s ‘Military Rivalry in Central Asia‘ in great detail describes Russia’s domineering attitude and policies to the countries to their south.  Blank calls them ‘neocolonial’ and basically ‘domestic stability operations’, meaning that Moscow considers these former Soviet states basically just that, Russian states.  All of ‘Stans of Central Asia are authoritarian governments strongly connected to Putin’s government, with one small and important exception, Kyrgyzstan, which had a democratic orientated ‘Tulip Revolution’ in 2005, that scared the bejeebies out of Moscow.  Since that incident, Moscow, with a little help and competition from China, has tried to even further cement its military and political presence in the region in a desperate move to make sure this does not happen again.

After a lot of bellicose statements regarding confronting Moscow after the Georgian invasion, many have called for restraint and asked the question, ‘what does this have to do with us?’  Though I largely agreed that the US must have a realist viewpoint of the situation and not go overboard with rhetoric or antagonizing of the Kremlin, these stories of Moscow’s domineering attempts to keep pliable dictators in charge clearly shows that the West and United States need to take the great power seriously.  The growth of democracy and liberal ideals is not set in stone and aggressive autocratic powers such as Russia can have a tremendous impact as to how the world is shaped.

The countries of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan are in especially vulnerable position as remittances from their relatives in Russia are not coming in like the used to.  The Russian economy is in rapid decline, and with oil and gas prices staying low, it could be a longterm issue.  There are millions of Tajiks, Uzbeks, and other Central Asian citizens in Moscow and other Russian cities looking for any work they can get and this downturn has made employment harder and harder to find.  Many of the CA immigrants who cannot find work are headed home empty handed.

To make matters worse, Russian Xenophobia is on the rise again and this time government officials are helping foment the anger and violent actions.  Just days before Christmas, a group of skinheads shot and then beheaded 20 year old Tajik Salokhiddin Azizov and sent a picture of his decapitated head to human rights groups.  For the year 2008, there were over 100 immigrant killings in Russia and this incident and the continual economic crisis do not bode well for the year ahead.  Making matters even more unstable is recent comments by a member of the Russian Duma and Moscow’s Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, each advocating restricting immigration to ‘fight radical Islam’ and to open up jobs for Russian citizens.  Though the Russian state has made some law enforcement moves to curtail and hold accountable those who committ anti-immigrant crime, they are obviously not doing enough and may actually be tacitly approving of such actions, possibly to take heat of themselves for the poor economic situation.

This makes a strong case against authoritarian governments, as it shows that Russian society, under this current system, is unable to have a real debate about the issue.  There seems to be no outlet for the people to express their frustrations, so they are using violence.  Kyrgz migrant Ovazbek Imonaliyev, 23, stated ‘I move through Moscow like a hunted beast.’  This is the year 2009, humans should not be ‘hunted beasts.’  The situation for the CA immigrants seems untenable in Moscow, but economic necessity will keep many of them there. 

(Photo: Russian convicted of murdering immigrants: Source: Associated Press)

Here are a few of the resources I’ve been checking out that may be of interest:

• “Central Asia in Al-Qaeda’s Vision of the Anti-American Jihad, 1979-2006” by Michael Scheuer - Scheuer, an ex-CIA agent who has been critical of the US WoT, discusses Al Qaeda’s minimal historical reach in the Stans’, but argues that Bin Laden and his partners seek WMDs and recruits in the region.
• “Roots of Radical Islam in Central Asia” by Martha Brill Olcott - This is an extensive piece cataloging the influential Islamic leaders and trends in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan from the early 20th century until today.
• “Islamic Religious Schools, Madrasas: Background” CRS Report for Congress by Christopher M. Blanchard - A short summary of the meaning, history, and extremist implications of Islamic madrasas throughout the Middle East, South Asia, and Central Asia. The madrasas’ effect on transnational terrorism and Afghanistan and Pakistan stability is especially explored.

These last two are shorter 1,2 page pieces:

• “Central Asia: Hizb-ut-Tahrir on the Rise” by Samantha Brletich - The article asserts HT, a professed non-violent group, is growing ‘more militant’ and argues that repressive measures by Uzbekistan’s President Karimov and recent similar policies by neighboring Kyrgyzstan are only aiding the group’s struggle for political potency.
• “Islamist Stirrings in the ‘Stans” by Jack Fairweather - Fairweather attempts to discover the reasons behind the recent rise in fundamental Islamist leanings in the region, finding that influence from money, madrasas, and religious leaders from the Gulf states is having quite the impact.

But I’m not here to talk about Kazakh macroeconomics today. I want to talk about how this economic downturn has affected Nazarbayev’s conjoining claim in that 2006 pronouncement, which was to increase science research funding in the country 25 times over in six years. The most recent issue of the journal Science discussed science policy in Kazakhstan, specifically analyzing the countries progress since Nazarbayev’s 2006 speech.

The author Glenn E. Schweitzer, in a very approachable and thorough fashion, reports on the unfortunate lack of progress by the state. Despite what he calls ’sincere’ efforts by the Kazakh state, funding for science research and education has actually slipped from .2 to .15% of GDP. Schweitzer points out that the state lacks both human and structural resources needed for a vibrant scientific and technological innovative industry. The nation still has a shortfall of managers and technicians needed to run productive laboratories and its science departments’ faculties were underpaid and most were found to have low morale. The Science article also rates the Kazakh educational system as rather weak as most talented students either study abroad or go into the business sector.

There is hope though, as Nazarbayev’s government seems determined to make science research and industry a priority. The Kazakh government should heed Schweiter’s pragmatic advice about what it takes for a country to obtain a thriving science industry:

Only with effective fiscal, trade, industrial, natural resource, agricultural, environmental, health, and social policies will science and technology have an opportunity to achieve the much-heralded status of an engine of economic growth in Kazakhstan or other countries.

President Nazarbayev and his government need to do what they can to make sure all policy avenues and resources are aimed at the same goal, the creation of a significant scientific community thriving in their country. Lastly, Schweiter offers even more specific advice to further the cause:

An endowment of $1 billion to ensure adequate faculty salaries and to support a tuition-free student body of several hundred engineering students with a policy of zero tolerance for corruption could make a real difference.

Obviously, finding the billion dollars in this economic climate will be difficult and not likely to happen any time soon, but like many policy prescriptions, it sure sounds nice! The article unfortunately needs to be purchased.

Extra Science Fun!:

Though this is not really related, I found this interesting chart about the Acceptance of Evolution in several Muslim countries, Kazakhstan included. Compared to the other 5 countries polled, Kazakhstan is quite the believer in the theory of evolution, with about 37% of the citizens’ polled stating that the theory was True. Though I could not find data, I have heard from a reliable source that in the US the figure is around 40%.

The chart is also from Science magazine: Acceptance of evolution in six Muslim countries. The data were gathered from 1996 and 2003, as part of a study of religious patterns in Muslim countries (8). The number of participants for each country is given in parentheses.

The US State Department urged ‘the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic to work with RFE/RL to again permit broadcast of these programs as soon as possible.’ Local opposition party leader Omurbek Tekebayev stated that this was part of a broader effort by the government to clamp down on independent media. Tekebayev also had this to say about the importance of RFE’s Radio Azattyk:

“Radio Azattyk’s news coverage has made it one of the most influential media concerns in Kyrgyzstan, as people in the regions always tune it to learn about the latest and most objective news on developments in the country.”

This is indeed disturbing and disheartening news and makes one feel more skeptical about the region’s progress towards a free and objective media. Outside groups are trying to open up the Central Asian government’s media outlets, but little has been accomplished. In October the European Commission held a conference about liberalizing the media with Uzbek officials, but as the Institute for War & Peace Reporting asserted, the Uzbek officials were just there to listen and then continue their current oppression of independent media outlets and journalists. The OSCE also held a Media Conference in Almaty, involving governmental officials from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, media professionals, and prominent regional experts, which was designed to promote media freedom and plurality in these participating states. This conference’s goals were worthy, but I fear that positive benefits stemming from it will be mild. In fact, the conference ended with calls for the CA states to increase the number of broadcasting channels. In light of Kyrgyzstan’s recent actions, this seemed sadly ironic to me.

Before the holidays took over for us in the West, NATO supply routes through Pakistan into Afghanistan were under siege by Taliban insurgents.  Since then, actions have been taken by both NATO officials, to find alternative supply routes through Russia and the Central Asian states north of Afghanistan, and the Pakistani government, which shut down a crucial part of the Pakistan-based supply route to try and weed out Taliban militants.

It appears that NATO officials are finding friendly listeners in the states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and even Russia when it comes to increasing their role in providing territory for NATO supplies into Afghanistan.  Gen. Duncan J. McNabb, chief of the American military’s Transportation Command, reportedly quietly visited nations along Afghanistan’s northern border last month and it looks like their governments will welcome the increasing traffic of nonlethal goods.  These CA states have revenues to gain, better relations with Europe and the US, and share NATO’s struggle of combating extremism and bringing stability to Afghanistan and the region.  NATO and US interests in a new, safer route are rather obvious and have become especially important as a surge in American troops is coming in the very near future and will need greater amounts of infrastructure and military supplies.

In regards to Russia, talks between NATO and Moscow officials appear to be going well and there may even be opportunities for a greater allotment of shipments, even including those with lethal goods.

“Talks are now under way for a NATO-wide air transit for military goods, not specified as nonlethal,” said James Appathurai, NATO’s chief spokesman.

“Those talks are going well,” Mr. Appathurai added. “The Russian Federation has publicly and repeatedly made it clear that this is an issue of strategic interest to them, and that despite disagreements we have over other issues, this area of cooperation has been walled off and preserved. We expect it to be deepened.”

Though there are those in Russia who still feel a greater US presence in Central Asia, a region they consider their ‘backyard’ is something to be feared.
The bottom line of this issue is that the government, civilian, and foreign military units in Afghanistan get the resources they need to prosper and bring stability.  How this happens, as in where the supplies comes from, is largely secondary, but this is another sad aspect of the rising instability inside of Pakistan.

(Photo: New York Times, a supply route in Pakistan)

Weeks ago, on November 27, in northwest Afghanistan, Taliban forces ambushed a large convoy of Afghan soldiers and policemen, killing 14, wounding 27, kidnapping another 20, and destroying or stealing over 20 vehicles. How could such a successful attack occur against soldiers and policemen in what was one of the more stable areas of the country?

First off, it appears that President Karzai pardoned the would be planner and leader of the attack, Maulavi Ghulam Dastagir, just weeks before, as he was in custody for aiding the Taliban! Tribal leaders and friends apparently convinced Karzai that Dastagir was a good citizen and mistakenly arrested and accused. In a complicated conflict with foes and friends difficult to distinguish from, it surely is tough at times to know when one is punishing an innocent, and therefore pushing him and his followers/friends/family to the insurgency, or constructively putting behind bars a dangerous individual.

In this instance Karzai was dead wrong, though he has been loathed to say so, and many soldiers and policeman paid the price. Dastagir taunted authorities after the incident and all strongly claimed that he was behind the attack:

“Definitely!” he exclaimed, and laughed again. “I am a jihadist, I will continue my jihad,” he declared. “My morale is very high.”

Another unfortunate aspect of the attack is how it symbolizes the growth of the insurgency and the weakness of the Afghan army and police force. The attack occurred in the northwest province of Badghis, once thought to be stable and near insurgent free. The Taliban are obviously gaining strength and becoming more ambitious in the their missions. On the other hand, it is disconcerting to see such a weak defensive showing by the Afghan troops and police. I’m sure they fought bravely, but they sustained an embarrassing amount of losses. In most incidents involving NATO/US forces, it is the Taliban who have taken the brunt of the casualties. The training and supplying of the Afghan army and police units appears to still need some major work.

What does this specific incident say to you about the overall Afghan situation? Just a simple Taliban attack not to be overblown? Or something more?

Around 70-80% of NATO supplies currently come in through volatile Pakistan and air transport is a near none starter when one considers the costs. It appears that NATO has made an agreement in principle with both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to set up a railway to move supplies into Afghanistan. Concerning a route through Russia’s territory, last April an agreement was made for a route but negotiations stalled and the Georgian crisis apparently grounded them to a halt, but it looks like a new door is opening. Moscow already lets ‘preferential’ NATO members, Germany and France, use move supplies, but it looks like a deal is in the works allowing all NATO states, including the US, to do so. A Russian official stated:

“All NATO countries will be able to use the Northern Corridor. As far as we understand, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have agreed to it and sent the relevant papers to Brussels. We’re just waiting for NATO to sign the agreements. We’ve done our part.”

The Northern Corridor, as this route is called, would hopefully be up and running within ‘weeks’ according a NATO official. Moscow may disagree with the United States and NATO on many issues, but Afghanistan, Central Asia, and South Asia stability is not one of them. A ‘Central Route’, which would go through Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and then into Afghanistan is also being discussed. Eurasia analyst Matthew Clement argues that Turkmenistan’s ‘opened’ stance since the death of Niyazov bods well for a possible deal with NATO as the country has sought to expand its relations.

These alternative routes will take on greater significance in a couple months as the United States will need to maintain supplies for 20,000 more troops expected to enter the conflict. We’ll see how these negotiations play out in the very near future.

(Photo Source: Radio Free Europe - Burned NATO vehicles in Peshawar, Pakistan)

“There is a consensus that there can be no peace, security and prosperity in Afghanistan without the strong involvement of its neighbors. And there can be no peace, security and prosperity for the region without a stable Afghanistan.”

Representatives from Pakistan, India, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, China, EU, and the US met behind closed doors to discuss what can be done to further Afghanistan’s progress. On the table was a debate about new possible routes for supplies into the country, since the Taliban have become aggressive in targeting resources in Pakistan before they can be successfully delivered. Central Asian states and Russian territory, which have been discussed and used to a small degree in the past, were specifically mentioned as being possibilities as alternative routes.

Though the Mejlis’ 125 seats were contested by 288 candidates, all of them had to be approved by the state, were almost all members of Berdymukhamedov’s Democratic Party, and many voters had no idea who their local candidate was until election day. For the first time in the country’s history, foreign observers were allowed to watch the election process. The UN, OSCE, Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, and the CIS all sent representatives to the state, a total of 60 people. However, the OSCE did not send a full monitoring team, saying ‘a genuine contest was impossible.’

Back to Turkmen state’s ability to pick and choose the candidates, journalist, activist Sazak Durdymuradov attempted to be a candidate, but was denied by the government for ‘unknown reasons.’ Sazak stated that he feared for his family’s safety by interviewing with RadioFreeEurope about why he was disallowed from his candidacy. When asked about whether these elections were a positive sign for the new constitutional reforms, Sazak called them ‘all the same games.’