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...

Russia and China: a Power House or Broken Home?

Russia and China seem pretty chummy of late. Both countries essentially head the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – an organization which frightens the West because it promotes cultural, security, and economic cooperation among China, Russia, and Central Asia. In the cultural arena, China has dubbed 2009 the year of the Russian language, and Russia will make 2010 the year of the Chinese language. To promote security, the two countries established a hotline between their heads of state.

Most recently, the countries displayed extraordinary economic cooperation. Russia secured $25bn in loans from China in return for supplying oil for the next 20 years. This deal is the largest trade financing agreement between the two countries to date: Russia desperately needs money and China desperately needs oil. Everyone’s happy, right?

Not exactly. Days after the historic agreement, a Russian warship opened fire on a Chinese cargo ship and sunk it. The two countries' foreign ministries blame each other. But Clifford Levy of the New York Times actually blames deteriorating bilateral relations. Why?

While both countries enjoy honoring agreements that are mutually beneficial (economic cooperation) or mutually benign (language exchange), Russia and China have a tendency to disregard cooperation when it affects domestic politics. Levy likens the sinking of the Chinese cargo ship to last year’s Russian-Georgian conflict. China didn’t support Russia because Russia recognized the autonomy of South Ossetia, and China didn’t want to encourage Tibet’s or Xinjiang’s calls for autonomy.

What's clear is that Russian-Chinese relations are only as simple as each country’s domestic politics, which is to say they're not all that simple. Notably, Russia and China don’t have an alliance or even an established method to resolve disputes and disagreements. They just have a mechanism for cooperation, which can be honored or ignored at either country’s whim. Hopefully, ignoring the cooperation won't lead to any more drowned sailors.

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)

Is the EU finally serious about its energy future?

On November 13, the European Commission proposed the EU Energy Security and Solidarity Action Plan as part of its Second Strategic Energy Review. Three new proposals that stand out: 1) the construction of a European supergrid, connecting power from the wind farms of the North Sea all the way to the Baltics, 2) the construction of two new gas pipelines, connecting Caspian and African gas to the bloc (Nabucco included), and 3) a "Community Gas Ring", which would essentially allow for the pooling of European gas supplies in the event of supply disruptions (here's looking at you Russia). These measures would directly address import diversification (particularly in natural gas, and specifically away from Russia), security of supply issues, and fragmented national power grids.

Despite recycling a lot of old ideas, the new proposals make this a highly ambitious plan, and in my opinion, one that has absolutely no chance of being carried out in its entirety.

The first rule of European energy is that the national always trumps the regional interest. National regulatory and interest-group challenges to EU-wide liberalization in the energy sector are formidable, and to date have blocked any substantive effort towards a single European energy market. With energy prices falling, and the commercial ties between some of the EU's most powerful members (Germany, France) and Gazprom still deep, there is little chance that this strategic plan will be successful. The European Commission has valiantly fought to create a liberal, single European energy market for 30 years, but the European Council always waters down the compromise enough to preserve the status quo in certain national markets. (Germany, France) Thus, fragmentation persists.

One also has to question the commercial viability of the alternative pipelines proposed by the plan. The Nabucco project has been hopelessly mismanaged. Its commercial viability has been suspect from day one, as the Caspian suppliers it seeks to tap are strongly oriented towards the Russian market, and only Kazakhstan has seriously entertained diversification away from Russia. It is important to note that Gazprom is highly dependent on imported Caspian gas for re-export to the EU, and therefore would not go down without a fight to keep the gas flowing through Russia's borders. I find it difficult to foresee the construction of multiple southern pipelines in the near term.

Finally, the chance of a "communal gas ring" is more reasonable, but no easier politically. Under previous EU energy liberalization directives, member states were required to compel private storage facility operators to open these facilities to universal access. In practice, this occurred less than desired because there is little commercial incentive for the private operators (who by the way, are usually state-owned monopolies like GdF). The chance of one country stretching its own supplies in a time of crisis to assist another member state's shortfall seems unlikely.

Ok, time for the rosier outlook. I was extremely pleased to find a reference to the importance of fostering interdependence between the bloc and its external suppliers (again, that means you Russia). The EU desperately needs to find solutions to its rising import dependence in natural gas. Unfortunately, its own supplies are declining at a rapid pace. This means that the diversification of import sources is the key pillar of the bloc's long term energy security. But in the short to medium term, the EU needs Russia, and Russia needs the EU. A commitment by both parties to fostering a mutually beneficial and secure energy relationship would be a truly powerful development.

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)