Posted on 07/11/2005 8:19:59 PM PDT by Srirangan
Drafted By: Dr. Michael A. Weinstein
Overshadowed in the Western press by the G8 summit of leading industrialized nations and the complications to it caused by the London transit bombings, another summit -- the July 5 meetings in Astana, Kazakhstan of the heads of government of the six members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (S.C.O.) -- promised to have greater geostrategic significance than the more widely reported events.
Created with its present membership of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in 2001, the origins of the S.C.O. date back to 1996 when Beijing initiated the Shanghai Five, which included all the current S.C.O. members except for Uzbekistan. The official purpose of the alliance, according to its founding declaration, is to form a comprehensive network of cooperation among the member states, including military security, economic development, trade and cultural exchange.
(Excerpt) Read more at india-defence.com ...
The new "Warsaw Pact" - or - *THE FOURTH REICH*?
I thought that I had stumbled on another Supreme Court thread for a minute
bttt
Another Iron Curtain in Central Asia. If China's influence grows, that would really be a problem for India for relying on oil in that region.
Baseless in Uzbekistan
Washington Times EDITORIAL
August 14, 2005
Uzbekistan has unceremoniously invited America to leave the military base on its soil, and has been simultaneously strengthening ties with Russia and China. The moves point to a possible shift in alliances in Central Asia -- at a loss for America. It is too soon, though, to draw that conclusion.
Uzbekistan, after all, may be simply flexing its geo-political muscle to get Washington to back off demands for democratic reforms. It may also be trying to temporarily appease Moscow and Beijing. While an Uzbek flag will surely fly instead of Old Glory, Uzbekistan may allow U.S. planes to have some use of the base, and will probably cooperate with Washington in other areas of interest, such as global counter-terror and drug efforts.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization -- which groups Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgystan, Kazakhstan, Russia and China -- said the United States should set a timeline for leaving its bases in Central Asia. Uzbek President Islam Karimov asked America to leave on July 29, giving Washington 180 days to do so. Since then, Kyrgyzstan, which hosts both a U.S. and a Russian base, has told Washington it can stay.
The United States has used its base in Uzbekistan as a logistical hub for operations in Afghanistan since 2002. Almost 1,000 U.S. troops have been stationed on the base. While the base has provided a useful foothold for the U.S. military, it is not essential to the mission in Afghanistan.
Washington has handled Uzbekistan's snub with level-headed adroitness, demonstrating America has other options in the region (such as Kyrgyzstan) and making it clear that we will leave if it is not wanted -- in contrast to, for example, the Russian military presence in Georgia. America's exit from Uzbekistan will also help create some distance between Washington and the repressive and autocratic Uzbek regime.
Indeed, the loss of the base may be America's first casualty in Central Asia of the administration's policy of backing democratic reforms around the world. The administration had become increasingly critical of Mr. Karimov's abuses and had cut foreign aid to Uzbekistan -- although those cuts were countered with increases in military aid.
U.S.-Uzbek relations came to a head after the regime brutally repressed an uprising in Andijan on May 13 and the United States pushed for an independent international investigation. Mr. Karimov was then further aggravated by the U.N.-airlift of 439 Uzbeks who participated in the rebellion to Kyrgyzstan. America's ouster from Uzbekistan came shortly afterward.
Signs that the U.S. base would not protect Mr. Karimov from a popular overthrow was also a likely a factor in the president's calculations. The U.S. presence in neighboring Kyrgyzstan did not guard President Askar Akayev from a popular uprising in March. Furthermore, Beijing and Moscow had been making clear their discomfort with the U.S. base.
Still, Mr. Karimov has probably not forfeited his ability to play the great powers off each other. Central Asian leaders in the shadows of China and Russia are pressed to mitigate their towering neighbors' influence by maintaining good relations with Washington. If Mr. Karimov cuts off the United States, Moscow in particular will be free to control, rather than court, Uzbekistan.
The Bush administration will also have to decide to what degree it wants to subordinate its counter-terror cooperation with Uzbekistan to its pro-democracy goals. Washington should continue pushing for reform in Uzbekistan, but should proceed with some caution. It should also generously support democratic and economic progress in Kyrgyzstan -- sending a curt message to the people of Uzbekistan.
Uzbekistan signals
By Christopher Brown
Washington Times Commentary Section
August 14, 2005
Recently, those seeking to assure America of China's peaceful rise received a major setback with the announced eviction of U.S. forces from Uzbekistan. Unfortunately, most Americans likely have no idea of the role China played in this episode or the potentially frightening implications of it for the future.
Uzbekistan's concern over the May 2005 riots or, more to the point, the U.S. reaction to those riots, was a key turning point, although not for the reasons given by the State Department, which has tried to cast our eviction as a result of our principled stand on human rights.
In recent years, we have witnessed democratic revolutions among many nations allied with the United States in the war on terror. Among them have been the November 2003 "Rose Revolution" in Georgia, the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine in December 2004, and most recently, the "Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan in February-March 2005. In the case of Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, former communists who had taken power following the collapse of the Soviet Union were replaced. In Uzbekistan, however, President Islam Karimov remains in charge.
These revolutions were perceived around the world as facilitated by the United States. The perception was fostered, though never directly, by the U.S. for both domestic political and foreign policy purposes. In truth, each of these revolutions was the work of internal democratic opposition groups. Unfortunately, Russia and China are using the perception of U.S. involvement -- and the fear it generates in our less-than-democratic allies -- to limit and counter our influence around the world. Regrettably, this includes recent, successful efforts by pro-China factions within the Russian government to move Russia closer to China in opposing the United States.
Prior to the riots, agitation and propaganda by China and Russia had laid a foundation of fear within Mr. Karimov's government that Uzbekistan could be next. After all, the only other nation in Central Asia that had been part of the Soviet Union and a host to American forces was Kyrgyzstan, the latest to fall to a democratic revolution.
When the riots erupted, the U.S. appeared to back away from unrestricted support for Mr. Karimov. In contrast, the Chinese foreign ministry responded by stating: "We firmly support the efforts by the authorities of Uzbekistan to strike down the three forces of terrorism, separatism and extremism."
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of China's statement is the phrase "terrorism, separatism and extremism." That phrase is one of the key rhetorical foundations of military cooperation within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
The SCO is perhaps the most dangerous organization most Americans have never heard of. It is headquartered in Beijing and consists of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. India, Iran, Pakistan and Mongolia currently enjoy observer status in preparation for full membership.
On July 5 at the annual meeting of the leaders of the member states, there was a joint statement issued that included the demand for a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from SCO member nations.
That same day the United States responded by saying "our presence [in the SCO member states] . . . is determined by the terms of our bilateral agreements" -- in effect, ignoring the significance of the SCO and the joint statement signed by Mr. Karimov himself. Within 24 hours, the Uzbekistan foreign ministry reiterated that it was seriously reconsidering the presence of United States forces on Uzbek soil.
There is, of course, another part to this story. Two weeks after the riots in Uzbekistan at the end of May, Mr. Karimov visited Beijing. He left China with a series of agreements for contracts worth over $1.5 billion. Two weeks after the July statement from the Uzbekistan Foreign Ministry, the Chinese energy company Sinopec announced an additional $106 million investment in Uzbekistan. Ten days later, Uzbekistan announced the eviction of U.S. forces, which have been supporting counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan. They will leave behind a completely modern base, upgraded at the cost to American taxpayers of millions of dollars, which can be used by either Russia or China.
Viewed separately, many of these events could be dismissed as coincidence. But taken together, they form a clear pattern of economic and diplomatic maneuvering by the Chinese that perfectly illustrates the present and very capable threat China presents to U.S. interests. Beyond Uzbekistan, China claims all our existing security relationships in Asia are violations of its sovereignty.
China is not going to disappear as a threat to American interests. In fact, the threat is only going to grow, and the sooner we awaken to it, the easier and cheaper the solutions will be.
Christopher Brown works for the Transitions to Democracy Project at the Hudson Institute in Washington D.C.
We need to pay very close attention to this indeed, particularly with oil currently at $67 a barrel.
Central Asia is only going to get trickier with all of them working in tandem with China and Iran.
The SCO may end up being the Fourth Reich.
I'm amazed at what little play this is getting.
Even around here.
It's something no one wants to discuss. It is very dark. It is the skunk at the garden party. Truth is, even if we are wildly successful in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even if we smash Syria and Iran, that is only the smallest scratching of the surface. It's like peeling the layers off the onion. Very thankless. I am seriously concerned that this war, which may in fact be at least a 20 year war and may become bigger, more deadly and more costly than WW2, may not be something the American people (or anyone in the West) have the patience and pain threshold to follow through on. I hope I am wrong. I PRAY I am wrong!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.