Mitsubishi ATV given by US in EXBS Vehicle Donation program to Uzbek Institute of Nuclear Physics
Argh, who writes these lines?
Assistant Secretary of State for Central and South Asia Robert O. Blake, Jr. put out the transcript of a speech yesterday made at Indiana University's Inner Asian and Uralic Natural Resource Center titled Toward a Great Gain, Not a New Great Game. OK, who profits, as Lenin would say?
Most of the references to human rights are generics, but there's this:
It is important to note that we always take into account the political, economic, military and human rights situation of a partner country when deciding what kind of security cooperation to pursue. As an example, we provide only non-lethal assistance to Uzbekistan because of our concerns about its human rights record. But we continue to engage, making it clear that our relationship can reach its full potential only when Uzbekistan meets its human rights obligations.
Non-lethal, but still military, i.e. still assistance to police and troops that might be directly or indirectly, as a system, part of human rights abuse. I don't believe human rights and democracy "rub off" from training, and that those kinds of exercises are mainly fallacious and at best, aspirational -- and really more about having contacts with regimes so that when all hell breaks loose you have people to talk to. Or even before all hell breaks loose -- in another program, the US supplies vehicles to the IUzbek nuclear institute to be able to zip around and monitor radiation at borders. During the presentation ceremony in July, Amb. George Krol explained:
The U.S. and Uzbekistan are partners in the fight against transnational threats including international terrorism and the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The problem of proliferation and trafficking of illicit materials is not just a problem for our two countries but for the world, and the work performed by Uzbekistan’s Institute of Nuclear Physics is vital to making the world safer.
These Mitsubishis are donated for "the war on terror," and are hopefully used for their intended purpose -- if used wrongfully, it's more likely they wouldn't be involved in cracking down on dissidents so much as driving groceries home. But speculation that the US might leave military vehicles or equipment (or more seriously, sell arms) remains -- and there's nothing wrong with continuing to watch this with that speculation in mind, because it could happen quickly. For one, we have Blake's words at a press conference in August in Tashkent which are a reassurance, but also involve his own thinking of what might be expected -- but not certainty:
AP: Also in Uzbekistan, there have been some reports from Russian media recently suggesting the possibility that during the drawdown during 2014 that military equipment might be left along. What assurances can be made making certain that the wrong things do not end in the wrong hands, by which I mean weaponry.Blake: First of all, the process of allocating Excess Defense Articles is only just beginning. We are beginning the consultations on that. It won’t be just for Uzbekistan but for all countries partnering on NDN. There will be quite detailed conversations with our military people based in embassies in each of these posts, with host nation counterparts on this thing. With respect to Uzbekistan, I do not think there will be any lethal weapons of any kind that will be offered. I think most of the kind of things that will be on offer will be military vehicles, Humvees, those kind of things. It is in our interests to provide those kinds of equipment. Uzbekistan has been a strong supporter of the NDN. That has in turn raised their profile with international terrorist organizations, who may want to target Uzbekistan in retribution. So, it is very much in our interest to help Uzbekistan defend itself against such attacks.
We are certainly prepared to think about how we can do that. I myself have been engaged over the last year in the U.S. Congress to get a waiver so that we can provide non-lethal military assistance to Uzbekistan, even though they have not met a lot of the human rights conditions that would allow for more regular military assistance. That waiver has been approved. We are providing non-lethal military assistance now and will continue to do so, and the EDA process will be one way that we could help.
Around Blake's trip to Uzbekistan in August, the Uzbek regime acquitted one token activist, Shuhrat Rustamov, as Democracy Digest reported although of course a dozen or more human rights defenders and journalists remain, and many thousands of religious prisoners remain. I haven't seen an independent read-out of this civil society meeting, which was likely choreographed and selective, but at least it was a departure from past years and trips by high-profile US officials who avoided civil society.
The Indiana speech doesn't add anything new with regard to these intentions or the prospects of deployment of a US base, but it certainly doesn't make such speculation seem unreasonable or even "conspiratorial" as Joshua Foust has claimed. It's an evolving situation. Joshua Kucera at the Bug Pit focused on the speculation about whether a base would be negotiated and noted Blake's denials. Although no base was negotiated, he felt the trip was used by Blake to understand Karimov's motivations and intentions for leaving the CSTO. But then Kucera overlooks the real practical goal of the visit, as Democracy Digest pointed out, in describing the "sweetener" to this trip that came with the activist's court acquittal:
The ruling came as Obama administration officials prepare to negotiate an agreement with Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan’s authoritarian president, to permit thousands of military vehicles, and other equipment to transit from Afghanistan through Uzbek territory.
This week General William Fraser III, the Commander of the U.S. military Transportation Command (TRANSCOM), visited Uzbekistan to meet with Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdulaziz Kamilov and Minister of Defense Kabul Berdiev to discuss issues relating to the Northern Distribution Network through which cargo transits Uzbekistan en route to Afghanistan. Those issues are likely less about supplying troops in their last year and more about bringing the heavy military vehicles out. All in all, the effort is to increase closer cooperation between the Uzbek and US militaries, as this other recent program for fraternization also indicates.
The UK has also, of course been very busy doing this same type of negotiations -- and this is what prompted the AP reporter to ask whether these transiting vehicles could "fall into the wrong hands," i.e. Uzbek military and/or Interior Ministry troops/police that might use it to oppress their own people as they did in Andijan in 2005 or -- I would add -- terrorists. Certainly when *thousands* of vehicles are going from point A through point B, some of them will get lost, stolen, misappropriated, and maybe given away, despite Blake's claims that this will be tightly controlled.
Kazakhstan also was described in the speech yesterday with a strange amalgam of business and human rights:
Turning to some of our specific security priorities, we have excellent cooperation with Kazakhstan on non-proliferation issues ranging from proliferation prevention to improvement of the regulatory framework for strategic trade controls, and we look forward to building on our cooperation on mutual security concerns with complementing progress in human rights, and labor and religious freedoms.
It's too bad we couldn't have that "religious freedoms" for Uzbekistan, too.
Then for Kyrgyzstan, hopefully not by design, no mention of human rights but something about "services". Is there a "service" citizens can sign up for to get equal treatment under the law if they are ethnic minorities like Uzbeks?
In Kyrgyzstan, which also hosts the Manas Transit Center through which all of our troops going to Afghanistan pass, we are helping the new democratically-elected government to reform the security sector and to address issues related to corruption and rule of law. We are also helping the government improve services for citizens.
The NDN continues to be vital despite resumption of relations with Pakistan and truck routes opening:
The Northern Distribution Network, or NDN, is perhaps the clearest example of the benefits to the U.S. our security engagement with the Central Asian countries has yielded. Over the past year, we have seen how the NDN provided critically important alternate routes for our non-lethal cargo transiting to and from Afghanistan, particularly when we were experiencing challenging moments in our relationship with Pakistan.
I do wonder a) whether small business get to contract with the NDN or only the big state cronies and b) how that GM plant, which was reducing its output, is doing and c) whether there is any really stringent review going on of the corruption issue in contracts, per the waiver passed last year that still provided for six-month reviews.
But here's the part that is new -- or at least, articulated with more emphasis, and contains the seeds of concerns about further militarization of the relationship with Central Asian dictatorships, and their own further militarization throughout the region. Many people think of 2014 as a kind of cliff, after which US troops come home and only a few remain behind to turn off the lights. But the Administration now describes the post-withdrawal period as a Transformation Decade , and that Transformation Decade actually includes, well, the continued presence of troops:
In addition to our important bilateral security relationships, the United States helps facilitate increased regional coordination and support for Afghanistan. The Central Asian countries are vital partners in support of the International Security Assistance Force’s efforts against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, especially as Afghanistan increasingly takes the lead for its own security, as it has done now for over 75 percent of its population. None of us has an interest in seeing Afghanistan ever again become a platform from which Al-Qaida or others could attack our homeland.
The Central Asian countries will remain important partners as a NATO Enduring Presence replaces the ISAF mission in 2014, and as Afghanistan embarks upon its Transformation Decade between 2015 and 2024. Afghanistan will increase coordination with NATO on internal security and with its neighbors on shared issues such as border security and combating flows of narcotics and other contraband [emphasis added].
The United States is likely to maintain a presence in Afghanistan, the particulars of which will be negotiated over the next year. We are committed to the success of Afghanistan’s security transition and to regional security, and we have communicated this commitment to our Central Asian partners.
Certainly there will be a lot less troops in Afghanistan, but I wonder if it's fair to say there will be more military advisor presence then in neighbouring Central Asia -- for a number of reasons, including the fact that the Central Asian governmentgs will want to have some US troops as a counter to Russian troops, and as a deterrent to Islamic insurgency springboarding from Afghanistan.
As for the concept of "Afghanistan as platform for Al Qaeda," I think the way to think about this is more like this: Al Qaeda is the platform from which attacks on our homeland and our diplomats abroad are launched. Or: Al Qaeda is the software that can be installed on any platform to attack our homeland and our diplomats abroad. And it seems pretty permanently installed in Afghanistan.
Together, the international community and the Government of Afghanistan agreed to fund the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) at a level of about $4 billion per year, in the period after 2014. In July, in Tokyo, international leaders met again and pledged over $16 billion in civilian aid from more than 70 international donors.
This may all be squandered.
The rest of the speech concludes lofty sentiments about increased trade, reduction of tariffs, and prosperity from pipelines -- yet to be built -- on the New Silk Road. There's even membership in the WTO on the table. There's keen interest from US corporations:
Progress on removing these impediments would spur greater interest by U.S. companies in the region. We already have seen strong indicators of American and other foreign companies’ interest in doing business in Central Asia. At our Annual Bilateral Consultation with Uzbekistan, held in August in Tashkent, we were joined by delegations from twenty-five major American companies like GE and Boeing, all looking to explore opportunities in Central Asia. In Ashgabat this May, more than 100 U.S. companies participated in a U.S. business exhibition, organized by our embassy in Turkmenistan and held in tandem with a forum sponsored by the U.S.-Turkmenistan Business Council.
Then there's this, on democracy and human rights as a way to make governments better -- possibly without regime change -- this is where the US tries to sell the idea to the Central Asian dictatorships that if they don't want an Arab Spring in their own backyards, they need to do more on human rights than those toppled dictators did, if they want to have any hope of staying in power -- or they will be overthrown anyway:
We continue to use every opportunity for engagement to urge the Central Asian states to address human rights and democracy concerns and to ensure space for peaceful exercise of fundamental rights, including those of assembly, expression, association, religious belief, and respect for ethnic minorities.
We also continue to emphasize that respect for the right to free speech, free media and peaceful worship reduces the appeal of violent extremism and contributes to sustainable and effective governance over the long-term. Put simply, institutions like a free press and an active civil society, far from being threats, are valuable feedback mechanisms that can help governments be more responsive and avoid the pitfalls of the Arab Spring. Likewise, strengthening the rule of law and democratic institutions will help build transparent and predictable political and investment climates that can promote economic growth benefiting all the citizens of these countries, not just a small elite.
Note that the other part of this Obama Doctrine or more precisely the Clinton Doctrine is that human rights not only helps governments stay in power better and prevent toppling, it will improve economies and investment climates. I have a feeling Tashkent doesn't buy this doctrine.
I'm not sure where the Clinton State Department has been making their benchmarks for human rights improvement in Uzbekistan -- it might be limited only to release of political prisoners, slightly more credible elections, maybe a little more tolerance for human rights activists and media.
The Annual Bilateral Consultation mechanism that I discussed earlier has been a springboard for deepening our engagement with civil society and advancing democracy and human rights. This August, I had the privilege of co-chairing the first-ever Civil Society Forum held as part of our ABC with Uzbekistan.
For the first time, we witnessed civil society representatives and members of the Uzbek parliament and government speaking frankly with each other. We hope this dialogue can expand and move into joint actions. We have had similarly productive civil society interactions during our consultations with Kazakhstan.
There's also a troublesome tendency to count as somehow "progress" on human rights and democracy various educational exchanges or other types of training that doesn't necessarily lead to a change of heart or a change of governance, especially if only elites connected to the regimes get to take part in them:
We are also exploring ways to increase our people-to people ties with Central Asia and among Central Asians. To take one example, over 40,000 Americans and Kazakhstanis have participated in State Department-sponsored bilateral exchanges in the last 20 years. In 2011 alone, about 50 American colleges and universities hosted 3,188 students from throughout Central Asia, including 1,890 from Kazakhstan and 560 from Uzbekistan. However, in many cases, the enthusiasm expressed by governments needs to be backed up with increased institutional support for initiatives like the Fulbright program, the English Language Fellows programs, and higher education cooperation.
Their enthusiasm might need to be expressed by tolerance for the Peace Corps as well, which has been booted out of Central Asian countries.
There's more -- hope and faith in the various acronym agencies of the region to build railroads and make that New Silk Road Happen despite their mutual animosities, and of course the pipeline dreams. But the concern will remain that the military relationship will outstrip the trade relationship that was supposed to be "enhanced" by human rights and democracy that never come. Afghanistan's shaky Karzai government and troops that turn on us are supposed to work with NATO to maintain peace, and the West will remain involved in anti-narcotics and border control. This configuration does mean that we have to worry about the US and EU helping to prop up these dictatorships with the Clinton Doctrine -- possibly soon to become the Obama II Doctrine that will involve accepting minor human rights progress and cooperation with NATO's goals in exchange for a pledge not to facilitate regime change for existing bad regimes, collaboration on putting down Islamists, sprinkled over with the supposed incentive of increased business opportunities.
