JustinLogan.com: Balancing Act in Astana

January 2008

July 06, 2005

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Balancing Act in Astana

There's been a lot of China hawkery going around these days, and several sudden bursts of often ill-informed interest in Central Asia ("Yipee, a new color!" See Glenn Reynolds for more on this.).

Given those two phenomena, the silence over the recent meeting between Vladimir Putin and Hu Jintao, as well as over the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit meeting in Astana, Kazakhstan, has been truly deafening. I'd submit that this is mostly rooted in the fact that there's more enthusiasm for partisan revolution-cheerleading and less enthusiasm for serious analysis. However, serious people like Nathan Hamm are saying that they're "having a very hard time making much of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit." Let me explain what I see.

The past week's news started with a joint Hu-Putin declaration on "world order in the 21st century." (Russian version here, English excerpts here.) I'm still wading through the Russian version, but it's mostly themes from the previous China-Russia declaration from 2002 -- emphasis on multipolarity, the UN, et cetera. What you would expect from relatively weak great powers facing a very assertive hegemon.

Then, Ariel Cohen at the Heritage Foundation previewed the SCO summit here. Cohen made a number of points, some of which I agree on, and some I think are nuts:

The SCO, established in June 2001 by China and Russia, ostensibly to fight terrorism in Central Asia, has thus far refused to allow U.S. participation as an observer. Instead, Iran, China and Russia are interested in creating a geopolitical counterweight to the United States. (agree)

However, important U.S. interests are at stake in Eurasia's heartland. These are support for U.S. presence in Afghanistan, neutralizing the growing Islamist influence in Central Asia, and prevention of a Russian-Chinese-Iranian "condominium" there. (largely disagree)

The U.S. also wants to ensure the growth of oil and gas production in the Caspian basin, and regional democratization. These American interests are interconnected and require a nuanced U.S. approach, which involves limited military power, diplomacy, investment and the work of nongovernment organizations (NGOs). (scratch the democratization tripe and I agree)

[...]

Washington should encourage reforms and private sector-led economics in both [Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan]. The U.S. should support democratization, property rights and free market economic policies. Washington should also encourage Kazakhstan to build a cross-Caspian pipeline, which would connect to the Baku-Ceyhan line. Regional wealth creation will go a long way to stem the rise of radical Islam. A dose of modern secular education and the encouragement of Sufi Islam would also help. (depending on what "encourage" and "support" mean, I'd agree, with the exception of attempting to "encourage" Sufism, which seems both beyond the call of a reasonable foreign policy and unlikely to succeed)

The United States should expand its military cooperation with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. (BIG disagree)

Finally, U.S. observer status in the SCO could facilitate this engagement and dispel fears about U.S. intentions in Beijing, Moscow and Tehran. After all, the United States will stay in Central Asia for the foreseeable future. (keep dreaming on SCO observer status; didn't you read your paragraph on how China, Russia, and Iran are building it as a balancer?)

Russian analyst Vyacheslav Nikonov cut to the chase without all that other stuff. Headline?

"Shanghai Cooperation Organization set to curb U.S. influence in Central Asia"

So all of that set the table. Then came the SCO summit in Astana. It delivered news, in spades:

India, Iran, and Pakistan got observer status, as was widely expected. India's foreign minister Natwar Singh says:

"We have neglected this area for a long time. It's our backyard. Now we plan to strengthen missions in the Central Asian countries so that we can enhance our role in the region."

[...]

"It's time we make up from years of neglect of this oil-rich region. Historically, we have had good relations with the region. To deepen engagement with the region, India plans to apply for full membership of the SCO," Singh said.

Describing the summit as a "big success", Singh alluded to his speech at the SCO meeting Tuesday where he had stressed on jointly fighting international terrorism and enhancing economic cooperation and strategic linkages in the region.

Also, the SCO called for the U.S. to tell them when they intend to leave bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. This wasn't just a joint declaration or Russian-Chinese statement, either; Tulip Revolutionary Roza Otunbaeva noted:

“We have put forward quite reasonable questions and I don’t think our relations (with the United States) should be damaged.”

Unsurprisingly, the US swiftly swatted down any notion that we intend to leave.

Regarding Iran's observership, Secretary-General of the SCO Zhang Deguang noted:

“Iran’s geographical location is very strategic and enjoys rich resources...Iran can have effective cooperation with SCO member countries in the fields of energy."

Funny, I always thought Chinese diplomats were supposed to be subtle.

Kazakhstan's President Nazarbaev told Pakistan it could be a full member soon, and on a very hopeful note, the Pakistani and Indian delegations met for 45 minutes and talked, well, "frankly."

Needless to say, the SCO mantra of evils, "Terrorism, Separatism, and Extremism" was repeated quite often. President Musharraf has been using his own formulation, "terrorism, sectarianism, and extremism," since the attacks on Shiite mosques in Pakistan this past May. Creative license and all.

---stop link promiscuity, begin brief analytical wrapup---

I submit to you that this is clearly balancing behavior on the part of everyone involved. Including our revolutionary buddies in Kyrgyzstan. And the gallingly naive notion that India is somehow suddenly in our hip pocket will prove to be a bit premature, I believe. Fact is, nobody involved has been particularly pleased with the level of stability we've brought to Afghanistan. As Russian Duma member Konstantin Zatulin noted:

"Judging by what happened in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, those military bases' presence has not had a positive influence on stability in the republics. I believe their presence has not helped reduce drug trafficking or the number of terrorist organizations in the region."

Look, you can take the importance of the SCO too far, I suppose, but it's pretty clear to me that this is a meaningful, and possibly enduring and deepening effort to stop what is perceived as a destabilizing US presence in Central Asia.

Speaking of taking things too far, the Jamestown Foundation's Willy Lam, sketching out "Hu's Central Asian Gamble to Counter the US 'Containment Strategy,'" points to an article that is just bloody nuts:

According to Beijing-based Russia expert Zhou Liang, the upcoming [joint Russia-China military] drills would be guided by “deep-seated strategic consideration” on both sides regarding three issues: growing U.S. influence in Central Asia; the Korean crisis; and the Taiwan Strait crisis. Zhou pointed to the possibility that should China and the U.S. go to war over Taiwan, Moscow would help to pin down some American forces in other parts of the region.

Try all you want, kids, but realism ain't dead yet. We have to hope that the State Department doesn't believe all the constructivist garbage that the administration's been spouting, or else we're in serious trouble.

July 06, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341f034953ef00d83423115353ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Balancing Act in Astana:

» Wise Words on Astana from Stalinist Orange
Justin Logan has a more in depth run-down of the SCO's meeting in Astana. [Read More]

» More Asian pow-wows from chez Nadezhda
About a month ago, on the occasion of a lecture by Donald Rumsfeld at a confab of defense minister types in Singapore, I wondered idly how one says "chutzpah" in Chine... [Read More]

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

Posted by: |

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:

Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

JustinLogan.com

"Throughout the nation's history, the national destiny of the United States has been understood in antimilitaristic, libertarian terms." -Hans J. Morgenthau

About

My Wish List

Currently Reading

Currently Listening To

Archives

Cato Blog Mafia

Blogroll

Published Articles

Longer Papers