Today I gave a lecture and a Q & A about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) for the World Affairs Council of San Diego-North County Chapter. Here is the Powerpoint for those of you interested.

My talk was centered on three questions: 1. What is the SCO? 2. What are its objectives? (Does it seek to balance the US or is just a talking/cooperative forum for its members) and…3. What are its capabilities?

'After you. No, after you. I said, after you. No, after you! Dammit, just go already Dimitri!'

1. The SCO is a multilateral group featuring Russia, China and the four Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The SCO started in 2001 and has grown from an organization that at first helped settle border disputes to a group that now runs joint military exercises, is considering creating a gas cartel, and has India, Iran, Mongolia, and Pakistan as Observers.

2. The group’s professed purpose is to further cooperation between its members in various social, cultural, security, and economic venues and stresses the goal of combating the ‘Three Evils’ of Terrorism, Extremism, and Separatism. The SCO pledges that it is not aligned against any nation or grouping (aka US/NATO). Scholars are a bit split on the group’s real intentions, with Martha Brill Olcott, Yu Bin, etc. believing the group is basically harmless and Stephen Blank, Ariel Cohen…arguing that it is a mechanism to oust US influence in Central Asia and beyond.

The SCO has been used by its members, and its observers (Iran), as a forum to criticize US foreign policy, especially regarding democracy promotion and missile defense systems in eastern Europe. Even more serious, during an SCO summit in 2005 Russia and China helped nudge Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan to demand that the Americans close their Afghan-supplying bases in each country. Uzbekistan followed through, kicking the US out of K2 base, but Kyrgyzstan let the US stay at Manas (though maybe not anymore!) as long as they upped their rent payments. The SCO’s joint military exercises, which have involved up to 10,000 troops and some major armaments, also pose a substantial threat to a US presence in the region, as well as to Taiwan. Even with these moves and gestures, the US government does not seem to feel too threatened by the group, stating that they are just being ‘watchful’ of its future actions.

3. A big reason why the US is not overly concerned about the SCO’s intentions is because the group lacks cohesion and therefore the capabilities to do it much harm. Though the group has done much to bring China and Russia to greater and greater heights of cooperation, the two neighboring great powers are strategic and energy rivals in Central Asia and this will continue to provide friction. Russia desires to dominate its former vessels and China wants them as markets, energy supplies, and as a jump off for strategic endeavors. These two goals will inevitably clash and they already do.

2007 Joint Military Exercise

The SCO also lacks institutional strength and this includes an ability to bring in the observer states as official members. Lastly, the hard presence of NATO and the US in Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan, along with its diplomatic and financial footprint, are not only out of the control of the SCO, but a sign that the ‘security’ grouping cannot even police its own backyard. Good relations with the United States are also crucial for all the SCO’s individual members and this means that will not likely take any actions to disrupt it.

I’ve studied the SCO closely for the past 2-3 years and will continue to do so for this site. It includes two great powers for gosh sakes!

Right after Russia’s successful ‘endeavor’ into Georgia last August, its leaders attempted to consolidate their geopolitical position with other former Soviet states, with a decent amount of success.  Medvedev, Putin, and other Moscow high officials visited Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, mainly solidifying and enhancing prior energy, military strategic deals.  In Azerbaijan for instance, Moscow offered to buy all of the gas rich country’s energy reserves.  These efforts by the Russians threaten to further the energy stranglehold on Europe, which receives about 30% of its gas reserves from Moscow, while increasing Russia’s geopolitical clout and position.

2009 Stare Contest Winner

However, all is not right with Russia as energy prices are (were?) dropping to dramatic lows and the nation was fighting a geopolitical battle for regional dominance with the US and NATO over Ukraine, Georgia, and the missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland.  One would think Moscow’s latest gas spigot choke off of Ukraine, and therefore Europe, would exemplify Russian strength, and in some ways of course it does, but in reality I believe Russia to be in a weak, or struggling position.  NATO’s expansion, combined with the Bush administration’s continual pressure for Ukraine and Georgian admission, US/EU encroachments into Central Asia and the Caucasus’s (weak as these efforts have been), VP Cheney’s visit to Azerbaijan and Georgia (with a $1 billion dollar pledge of aid promoted by current VP Biden) and the official signing of missile defense deals with Czech and Poland all have moved the West closer and closer to Russian territory and within what Russia believes is its ‘sphere of influence.’

Peter Zeihan of Stratfor agrees, calling the possible loss of Ukraine into NATO and the EU as the ‘kiss of death’ for Moscow.  Zeihan correctly asserts that this strategic loss would transform Russia into a purely defensive power with little ability to project its power outward.  It is in this context that we should see Moscow’s current gas cutoff efforts, as they seek to reel Ukraine back in and threaten the EU to back off. This type of strategy has major benefits for Moscow, the aforementioned and extra revenues from charging higher and higher prices and transit fees, and very little costs.  The EU just does not have that many alternative energy suppliers.  The BTC pipeline, which goes through Georgia-Azerbaijan-Turkey, is the only serious pipeline to the EU that does not go through Russian territory.  The Trans-Caspian and Nabucco pipelines are also alternatives, but have consistently run up against numerous hurdles that Central Asian energy expert John Daly sees as too high to cross.  Daly actually calls the current energy supply situation for Europe a ‘high water mark’!  So in other words, Moscow does not have to fear its trapped customers from getting free anytime soon.  

Russia's Transnational Pipeline Empire

How do you see Russia’s geopolitical situation?  Weak? Stable? Strong?  What about Europe’s gas supply situation?  Can they find away out of Moscow’s grasp?  What about this idea?

The Foreign Policy Association just made a big mistake…they published me. I wrote a short descriptive/analytical piece for the FPA about the rise of Islamic terrorism and extremism in Central Asia and how it was spilling over into the Afghan/Pakistan borderlands. Here is an excerpt below:

The border between the states of Afghanistan and Pakistan is now arguably the most active front in the war on terror. Foreign terrorists and extremists have come to the volatile border from the Middle East and Central Asia and there is real fear that these perpetrators may bring the war back to their home countries. Even more worrisome is that several of the militant groups involved in the current Afghan/Pakistan/US/NATO conflict hold broader goals of attacking American and Western interests. Central Asia, defined here as Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Uighur-dominated Xinjiang Province in western China, with Afghanistan and Pakistan as integral neighbors, also has vibrant militant groups threatening the governments of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and before the Olympics the Chinese government was targeted for several attacks by Uighur separatists with ties all the way to Pakistan. This briefing will analyze the rise in terrorist and extremist activities near the Afghan/Pakistan border, explore the major Islamic extremist groups active in Central Asia, discuss the reasons for their presence, and provide policy recommendations for the US, local actors, and regional groups.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban’s Foreign Helpers

In the last year or so there have been continual reports of a greater presence of foreign individuals and groups participating in extremist activities undermining Afghanistan, Pakistan, and regional stability. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have done an excellent job recruiting foreign jihadist to their fight against the US/NATO, Afghan, and Pakistani forces. Several disturbing trends have been recorded, including a rising use of suicide bombings and the recruitment and use of children in combat. Since 2001, there have been over 260 suicide bombings in Afghanistan alone, not to mention the hundreds that have recently occurred in Pakistan and Iraq, and unfortunately this number has only been increasing. US officials have stated that Al Qaeda and Taliban militants in the Afghan/Pak border have systematically created an underground network into Central Asia, which has brought in approximately 200 children into the violent conflict. Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have been called ‘feeder channels’ for the terrorist groups. Pakistani journalist and scholar Ahmed Rashid told Radio Free Europe: “We’ve seen more and more of these people coming in. We have seen more suicide bombers in Afghanistan who supposed to be Uzbek from Uzbekistan. Clearly, there’s something going on here.”

I’m assuming now you are totally hooked and are desperate for the rest, right?  Click here to continue reading the piece.  Thoughts?  Criticisms?

In the early 90s, I used to listen to a Radiohead song called ‘Electioneering‘ from their groundbreaking album, OK Computer.  The song bitterly bemoans the UK/US electoral process and vote getting tactics by politicians and parties.  Though the song brilliantly and rather accurately portrays some of the unfortunate truths of our electoral system, it is a protest song that could only come from a stable, free state, and many of the items criticized by the lead singer Thom Yorke, would be welcomed in many of the worlds more autocratic states.

A Russian observer 'monitoring' the Belarus elections in September

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.

(Photo Source: New York Times)