What is happening in Central Asia?

Pakistan is so bad that we're highlighting trash pick-up and the former American ambassador may soon be effectively governing Afghanistan.

Mr. Holbrooke has his work cut out for him...

Holbrooke's heroes

Obama's Afghanistan policy review and the following talks at the Hague are being praised for the inclusion of Iran. I've long advocated the inclusion of Iran in Afghan dealings; but a regional solution will only work if every country is involved in shaping strategy. Instead of opening the table to debate, Holbrooke and his team are essentially dictating policy. Apparently, they expect India to accept the notion that Pakistan is a victim of terrorism and a trustworthy partner. Guess what? They're not buying; nor should they be.

The fact that the Obama administration is still supporting Pakistan and now talking with Iran, without any significant conditions, is a huge slight in the eyes of India. Prime Minister Singh has essentially banked his career on the new strategic relationship with the US he helped usher in with the nuclear deal. India, after reorienting their entire foreign policy to align with the US, is being cornered into supporting their enemy, who have still not pursued the planners of 26/11 or even shared evidence.

Treating our strongest ally and partner in South Asia as an afterthought is a huge mistake. Indian elections are this month; the economy is obviously the central issue, but if Mr. Holbrooke continues to talk to India instead of with it, you better believe we will have a much less sympathetic ear in Delhi. Replacing a centrist, liberalized government with a nationalist, populist alliance hostile to most US activity isn't exactly a good change.

(Photo from Politics and Meetings)

The Great Game revisited

The Great Game is a term used to describe the 19th century struggles between the British and Russian Empires for supremacy in Central Asia. It’s henceforth been a term that also tends to get thrown around anytime Russia butts heads with a Western power over territory in Central Asia. It happens to be a great day to revisit the Great Game.

Last week, Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev announced in Moscow that Kyrgyzstan will discontinue U.S. access to an air base that is key to military operations in Afghanistan. Why did he make this announcement from Russia? Well, because he had just finished a meeting where Russian President Medvedev pledged to lend Kyrgyzstan $2 billion, write off $180 million in debt, and add another $150 million in aid.

Where to begin? No one wins the Great Game. The base in Kyrgyzstan is currently the only good US access point to Afghanistan, as the Uzbekistani government stopped allowing US operations back in 2005. This will drastically affect the war on terrorism right as the Obama administration was preparing to deploy as many as 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan this week. Oops.

Moreover, the Kyrgyz sanctioned US use of the base was really the last show of any good relations between the Kyrgyz Republic and the US. Since Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution in 2005, freedom and human rights have not taken off as the West would have hoped. The country is increasingly turning to its closer neighbor - Russia - for support. Now with this large fiscal promise from Medvedev, the Central Asian country is sure to back slide even further away from the goals of the color revolutions.

Sounds bad? It gets worse. Russia is angling for leverage in running the war on terrorism on its own terms, but she is in no position to make these promises of loans and aid. If history is any indication, Russia is now setting a precedent. It cannot follow through on similar promises to the other Central Asian nations, but will certainly have to go through the motions. Unless the economy hits a dramatic up-turn, Russia is setting itself up to fail.

And the big loser in the Great Game? Well, that continues to be the people of Central Asia. Human rights, independent media, and basic freedoms will continue to decline. The initial capital from Russia will most likely boost a number of government programs, but nothing will be sustained. My advice? We’re all better off playing Risk.

(Photo via markusbc)

The new administration's approach to China

Most foreign governments have rallied behind the call brought forth by President Obama to restore the spirit and the strength of the United States - even the Chinese (though with a few concerns I will outline here). While most are looking forward to a "new chapter" and anxiously awaiting an opportunity to embrace the forthcoming change, there is cause for some nations to wonder what the rejuvenation of America will bring. After just a few days under the Obama administration, it is clear that China has become one of these, cautiously optimistic, nations. No one is overlooking the longstanding issues between China and the US: especially, China's human rights record, environmental standards, public censorship, fixed currency, and increased military spending. Not listed however, may be a bigger and more subtle challenge for the Chinese: both the United States and the Chinese have developed an insurmountable political ego. A renewed global, American presence means these two countries will inevitably step on each others toes.

Not suprisingly, this happened within minutes of President Obama's Inauguration. During the live broadcast of the Inaugural address, Chinese officials moved quickly to censor remarks on communism and fascism, in addition to a call for an end to the "silencing of dissent." For most of us watching in the United States these comments elicited historical nostalgia, but word of the Chinese censorship highlights how drastically the American worldview differs from the Chinese. In a country where a large portion of the population sees their brand of communism as a centerpiece of national pride and lives a separate struggle for prosperity, it is unlikely that such references would have been well received. More importantly, an educated audience would know that President Obama's words had less to do with the communism we see in China and more to do with American history and its historical rival. What is intriguing, is that the omission of these comments may have been a favor to the United States, in addition to a precaution meant to quell a growing sense of nationalism in China that could easily turn on either government. For the Chinese, it is possible that letting a stab at communism pass without notice would just be plain bad form. China would like to display President Obama as the charismatic leader that he has become and avoid the possibility that the public might falsely interpret his comments as opposition to the Chinese political system.

Post-inaugural remarks were decidely more focused, both in tone and detail. Timothy Geithner's statement to the Senate during his confirmation hearing directly accused China of manipulating its currency. Some sources are claiming the statement marks the beginning of a new era - one of hard line approaches to China's economic policy. China's adjustable currency rate has long been an issue among economists, but why did Geithner bother to bring it up now, except to please Senator Charles Schumer? Especially as the response was no small matter - when the Deputy Governor of the People's Bank of China politely reminds you that the widespread consequences of the current financial crisis and the trade imbalance in the United States will not be leveled by a mere currency revaluation, China means business. That friendly reminder definitely cost a few treasury bonds. Of course Tim Geithner wants our "major trading partners to operate with a flexible exchange rate system" and for "market forces [to] determine the value of the exchange rate." But I am certain that in the future, the Chinese will be quick to remind Mr.Geithner that he can't have everything he wants.

There are plenty of other issues for the United States and China to butt heads over, but I believe that the ball is in China's court. Tibet has been off the radar since negotions between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese came to a standstill and the world is already well aware of the floating smog cloud over the entire continent of Asia. (Also, our environmental woes are now officially mutual: note the literal "Collapse of the Clean Coal Myth" just days ago). However, there is one issue that China has made progress on faster than the Obama Administration likley expected. This is affordable health care. On Wednesday, China announced that it will bring Universal Health Care to 90% of the population by 2011 and spend as little as seventeen dollars per person. This is tough to believe, but if China can pull this one off, then touché. We have our work cut out for ourselves.

(Photo of Chinese currency from toesoxluver's photostream)

South Korean trade politics: NOT for the faint of heart

Thought the West had a monopoly on contentious trade politics? Think again:

Opposition lawmakers ended their violent, 12-day siege of South Korea’s parliament Tuesday after successfully delaying a vote on a major U.S. free-trade deal. Democratic Party legislators had occupied the National Assembly since Dec. 26, fending off security guards who tried to drag them out by force last week. The sit-in ended after the ruling Grand National Party abandoned its bid to ram through the legislation before President-elect Barack Obama takes office Jan. 20. South Korea and the U.S. agreed to the landmark accord in 2007 to slash tariffs and other barriers to trade, but the deal sparked an outcry from farmers and labor, and Obama has hinted he will seek to renegotiate it. The deal would be the largest for the U.S. since the North American Free Trade Agreement more than a decade ago.

Of course, all this comes after the opposition tried to force their way into a barricaded room where the free trade agreement was being discussed using sledgehammers back in December. Yes, sledgehammers. Grand National Party members responded in kind, spraying fire extinguishers at the opposition party members. Yes, (sigh)... fire extinguishers. At least one person left the scene with blood streaming down their face.

Ridiculous as this all sounds, politics devolving into fisticuffs is not so unusual in South Korea. Still, it shows how contentious the domestic politics of trade can be on both sides of a proposed agreement. South Koreans are uncomfortable importing American beef, among other things. Americans are frustrated at South Korean quotas on imported autos, among other things.

It's all very unfortunate, because the KORUS FTA is the most economically-meaningful trade deal that the Bush administration managed to negotiate during its tenure. As it stands, you’re more likely to see another bench-clearing brawl in the South Korean National Assembly than this agreement get ratified in either country...

If you haven't seen Emily's excellent post yesterday about the riots in Greece, have a look for another dose of political violence.

(The picture above is from a 2004 brawl in the South Korea National Assembly, via Delaware Online. For the truly unbelievable pictures from the December battle, check out this New York Times article.)

All quiet on the Western front?

Any talk of Afghanistan these days usually revolves around its porous border with Pakistan. Common sense wisdom says that Tailban militants are hiding out in the terrain that straddles the desolate area known under a variety of guises: FATA, Warizistan, North West Frontier Province.

While it's certainly true that funds and arms pour in from Pakistan, well-founded rumors are also circulating that Iran is smuggling arms and cash in exchange for drugs to the Taliban over the western border as well. This is scary, probably true, and should be just as high on our security agenda as the Pakistani border. Iranian influence was what caused, in part, the severe sectarian strife in Iraq. It's pretty obvious that's the last thing we need in Afghanistan. And it is certainly true that the violence once contained in the south and east has been increasing in the western countryside.

As a possible nuclear power with delusions of dominance and influence throughout Central and South Asia, Iran's role in Afghanistan offers a chance to pursue a more fruitful strategy of engagement and stabilization in both countries. The US can either rebuff Iranian efforts unilaterally in which case arms will continue to flow into Afghanistan and probably increase. Or measured steps can be taken to allow Iranian efforts greater importance. Iranian desire to expand their regional influence through aid efforts is a concern but much less than an increase in their arms smuggling. Iran has been a heavy giver in the international reconstruction effort and was a vital lynchpin in negotiating the Bonn Agreement, which established Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. They want a greater role in guiding the future of Afghanistan and if they aren't given a seat at the table will continue to destabilize our efforts in the country.

Their role gathering support from normally aloof countries, with little desire to be tied to an American led invasion, was vital to securing international and regional support in 2001. Let's treat it as such and give them something better to do in Afghanistan than run guns.

(Photo: fallenwattle)

Tread carefully

Human Rights Watch reported today that civilian deaths in Afghanistan tripled from 2006 to 2007. The main culprit? US and NATO air strikes. Unfortunately this is a trend that has continued unabated in 2008. These developments are more than "regrettable" but spell serious trouble for military efforts in the region.

As strikes continue to kill more and more civilians, the US is fast losing support, not only from the Afghan and Pakistani public, but also the governments of both countries. The recent death of 90 civilians - confirmed by the UN - has led to increasingly tough rhetoric from President Karzai and the recent border crossing strikes in Pakistan are leading Zardari, soon to be President of Pakistan, to step up criticism of US and NATO efforts.

Unless the US is careful and starts heeding the very warranted criticisms of both Presidents, then we will soon find ourselves lacking allies and support in the region. Using targeted strikes instead of increasing troop levels is the right move; I've noted this before. But our forces must take great care to verify intelligence before bombing these frontier areas. Any semblance of success hinges on cooperation and support from the independent tribes that inhabit the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This vital section of the populace will not stand for many more civilian deaths...nor should they. As politicians continue to gather support by distancing themselves from American efforts, this administration must realize that our focus should be winning the hearts and minds of the populace. Small, focused special forces groups are the right approach to purging this area of radicalism. While air strikes by drones may decrease the risk to our troops they lack the capability to define civilians and assess information gathered on the ground. Increased intelligence will win this war but don't expect civilians to offer much help if we keep killing their families.

(AP Photo)

Going, going, gone

Despite my obvious interest in Pakistan, I did not want to write about Musharraf's resignation until I had some time to really think about the implications. There has been plenty of commentary, most of which is missing the point.

Musharraf was an army man at heart who eschewed democracy for iron fisted control of the military and intelligence communities. His biggest accomplishment was holding onto power for this long. Just after that was his ability to hoodwink the US into believing he was the man who could lead the region into stability. 

History will wait to judge Musharraf until Pakistan's position in the geopolitical realm is resolved. If Pakistan remains stable and is able to control extremism (it will never be fully stamped out), he will be praised for his military prowess and vision in aligning Pakistan with the US. If Pakistan slides deeper into decline and becomes a lawless frontier, then he will be blamed for not doing enough and leaving the civilian government with its hands tied. The truth is that, as much as people call for the coalition to stay strong, they will continue to quibble over the problematic domestic issues that hang over the country (judges, inflation, and violence).

Matthew Yglesias almost gets it right. The US needs a Pakistan policy that is not based on a "new Musharraf" or other figurehead; but this is simply not possible. Pakistani politics, like the Indian variety, are based on cults of personality. Until Pakistani political discourse becomes rooted in policy and not people, the US has little chance of influencing the country's course. The only possibility of guiding Pakistan to a more stable economy and democracy is to divert money from the military to development schemes. If we can build private enterprise and political participation, perhaps the people of Pakistan will demand more from a better leader. Unfortunately, the rudder remains up for now.

Musharraf's last stand

I've talked about the importance of Pakistan a few times, especially concerning South Asian regional stability. The latest development there revolves around President Musharraf who is refusing to resign, despite impending impeachment charges.

The charges stem for a number of "offenses", varying in their legal strength. Despite his economic mismanagement and authoritarian streak, the only charge with merit concerns his dismissal of a number of judges, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The next week will prove vital for Pakistan's democratic development and US strategic interests. Pakistan has had trouble embracing the democratic process and its history is littered with coups, some successful, others not. You can be sure that a lot of licit and illicit diplomatic maneuvering is occurring right now and will continue throughout the hearings. Pakistan is too strategically important to allow for any period of serious instability or confusion.

What the international community is hoping for, and should be working toward, is one of two things. Either a swift conviction of Musharraf, followed by his exile and the decoupling of the military from government hands to independent military men, preferably sympathetic to US training and presence OR Musharraf's acquittal where after he becomes a shadow controller of his loyalist party. I may be vilified for saying this but it is the most attractive option if the first does not happen, which, Pakistan being Pakistan, it will not.

While Musharraf was a "dictator" he kept Pakistan free of the extremism that has spread since he lost central power. While he certainly overstepped his bounds by attempting to strong arm the judiciary, if he worked behind the scenes and effectively kept Pakistan on the path to liberalization this would be vastly preferable to a democratically elected (but still corrupt) government lacking the strength and control to stabilize Pakistan.

Foreign policy is often about picking the best of the worst. And right now, unless Pakistan's government steps up, that pick will be Musharraf.

Talibanistan?

Pakistan is quickly becoming home to more foreign terrorists than ever before. This is not helped by the truce being cut between the government and tribal groups from the northwestern FATA region. Baitullah Mehsud, a warlord widely suspected of plotting Benazir Bhutto's assassination, is leading the charge. The deal comes fresh on the heels of a suicide bomb attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul that killed 41 civilians and injured 139.

While the US demurly denies any direct link between Pakistan and the bombing, the Afghan government has been more than forthright sharing its belief that Pakistan, specifically their ISI intelligence arm, was behind the attack. The rumor mill is awash with tales of varying veracity but one thing is certain. The possibility of success in Afghanistan is directly hinged on a working relationship between its two tenuous neighbors: India and Pakistan.

The lack of news from Afghanistan - a $4 billion G8 pledge for Afghani security and development was pushed to the back page this week - reflects a worrying sense of idleness and complacency. The situation in Afghanistan is growing worse by the day and requires delicate maneuvering by its neighbors to prevent any further decline.

The relationship between India and Pakistan is shaky at best. Foreign pressure and nuclear co-habitation are the two main reasons they still talk and flare-ups, such as the recent protests in Kashmir, are still common, though violence is at an all-time low. But if there is to be success in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India must restrain their public voices and defuse the situation using diplomatic back channels. Their relationship is too perilous to permit unfounded nationalist rhetoric.

Regional stability is at risk but Afghanistan also needs all the help it can get - especially from two such powerful players. The country's development and freedom requires the military cooperation of Pakistan and the economic support and guidance of India. Without these two pillars, peace may never take hold. The bombing represents many things but not a personal attack on India; the Taliban agents carrying out such work are not Pakistani but Chechnians, Uzbeks, and Arabs. Their fight is a global one. India must realize this and work with Pakistan to stamp out such extremism in Afghanistan. The US must help.

It is unwise and unfair for the US to openly criticize the tribal negotiations. Though more jihadis are now in the FATA, this reflects a perceived chance of success in Afghanistan and one of defeat in Iraq. In this case, correlation is not causation. The negotiations may not be to the US' liking but after supporting an autocratic ruler like Musharraf for so long we must be willing to back a democratically elected government, regardless of whether we like their actions. If Karzai can maintain his grasp on Afghanistan and Pakistan can bring quiet to the FATA, even through devolution of power, then the billions of development dollars pouring into both countries may be put to some use. Without security, and at least the semblance of due political process, extremists will continue to prevent any advancement or peace. NATO forces are already planning their withdrawal: shouldn't they at least leave the Afghans a chance of success?