Archive for the ‘Central Asia’ Category
January 24, 2012
Geopolitically, Pakistan is hemmed in between Iran to its west and India to its east. In India, it has what it believes to be a mortal enemy with which it has been at various levels of war since independence; in Iran, it has a rival for leadership in the Islamic world. Pakistani leaders would like their nation to be the center of a pan-Islamic quasi-Caliphate to balance the growing power of India. To that end, it’s Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence has built what some call “an empire of terror” throughout the nations of Central Asia. ISI has a in every pie, with the dual goals of thwarting other Islamic nations for leadership (Iran and, increasingly, Turkey) plus building a deterrent for India. Window on the Heartland has recently posted an overview of Pakistan’s use of terror as a geostrategic lever:
Pakistan has always desired to expand its influence in Afghanistan and beyond. Central Asia is seen as an area of natural expansion for the country. Islamabad’s objectives in the region are determined by its geopolitical imperative: to turn itself into the leader of an Islamic bloc stretching from the Black Sea to China able to counter India’s influence and become an autonomous actor on the international scene. In this context, the destabilizing efforts carried out by the ISI through support to terrorist groups in Central Asia since the early 90s have been aimed at creating the right conditions so that the Pakistani leadership could gradually take over from of other major powers such as Russia, China and the United States.
Read the whole thing.
The ISI has built what is in essence a model for a low-tech, asymmetric analog to the integrated defense network centered on complex weapons systems that the US is building.
Posted in Central Asia, geopolitics, Grand Strategy, Pakistan | Tagged geopolitics, geostrategy, India, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey | Leave a Comment »
January 11, 2012
Alexandros Petersen, writing at Foreign Policy, examines China’s drive to secure energy supplies from Central Asia. In many ways, China is in the same geopolitical pickle that the Germans found themselves before World Wars I and II: They lack the natural resources that their growing industrial sector requires, but they are geographically constrained by the Russian giant on the land side and by the overwhelming naval power of America and her allies on the maritime side (Britain and her allies in Germany’s case). As with Germany before, the vast spaces and resources of the Eurasian Heartland are issuing a siren call. There, they cannot help but bump up against long time Russian interests and influence. The single most important geostrategic goal for the West in general and for the US in particular is to prevent a strong alliance between China and Russia (as it was to prevent a permanent linkage between Germany and Russia in the last century).
Posted in Central Asia, China, Coalitioning, Long Cycle Theory, Russia | Tagged China, Coalitioniing, Long Cycle Theory | Leave a Comment »
October 31, 2011
The long time American military commitment to the Persian Gulf region will not end when US forces leave Iraq at the end of 2011. There is already word that the Pentagon and Obama Administration are preparing to beef up the American military presence in the six states of the Gulf Cooperation Council. This is almost farcical. One of the major issues put forth by Osama bin Laden in his original fatwa against the US was the presence of “infidel” military forces in Saudi Arabia, home of Islams two most holy cities. One of the great benefits of the Iraq war was that, by removing Saddam Hussein’s perpetual threat to the Gulf oil fields, it allowed the US to remove its forces from Saudi Arabia, and in so doing to remove a driving force for jihad against America. Now, due to what seems like blind disregard, the US will be forced to redeploy military forces to the Land of the Two Mosques. What was one of the few clear benefits of the Iraq War is being tossed away. This just sets us up for another generation of radicals with a clear grievance against the US to emerge . . . we are right back where we started.
In the other theater of the rapidly ending War on Terror, the State Department has launched the “New Silk Road” initiative to fill the gap as the US military mission to Afghanistan winds down. On paper, this seems like a good idea, but Americans have had a number of good ideas on paper. The Bug Pit points out that most people in the region believe this effort will prove to be “unfeasible . . . and so not worth worrying too much about.” And, if it does turn out to be feasible, it does not appear from published statements that State has not game planned for what would be a robust Russian response.
I think a New Silk Road is a promising strategy, but it has to have real support. It would help if there was a general foreign policy consensus in the US that bridged various administrations, as containment of the Soviet Union did for so long. I humbly submit that an awareness of Long Cycle Theory in general and EnerGeoPolitcs in particular might go a long way toward creating that consensus. We are nearing the endpoint of the current phase, probably within 20-30 years, and the coalitioning ahead of that macrodecision is occurring now, whether we actively acknowledge it or not.
Posted in Central Asia, Coalitioning, Grand Strategy, Long Cycle Theory, Middle East, Persian Gulf | Tagged coalitioning, GCC, Long Cycle Theory, New Silk Road, Saudi Arabia | 1 Comment »
October 25, 2011
From the Asia Times:
The Chinese desire is meant to contain growing terrorist activities of Chinese rebels belonging to the al-Qaeda-linked East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) that is also described as the Turkistani Islamic Party (TIP). The Chinese Muslim rebels want the creation of an independent Islamic state and are allegedly being trained in the tribal areas of Pakistan. According to well-placed diplomatic circles in Islamabad, Beijing’s wish for a military presence in Pakistan was discussed at length by the political and military leadership of both countries in recent months as China (which views the Uyghur separatist sentiment as a dire threat) has become ever-more concerned about Pakistan’s tribal areas as a haven for radicals.
Pakistan is more eager to have the Chinese begin building the long discussed naval base at Gwadar, part of China’s long term “string of pearls” strategy. Perhaps allowing military bases on their frontier will part of a quid pro quo for Gwadar. In any case, Pakistan is playing a delicate game. For decades, they curried favor with the US as a means of balancing the power of their arch rival India. However, as the Americans have grown tired of their duplicity and double dealing, they are switching to China. However, a Chinese presence in Pakistan is likely to provoke India to beef up its own military presence in the region.
Central Asia is suddenly bristling with great power military forces. India has been making efforts to build a presence in both Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan; Russia retains a strong presence their, both economically and militarily, and the US remains engaged not only in Afghanistan but also in Kazakstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan through its Northern Distribution Network. Now, China seeks to add troops to the mix. Aggressive Chinese expansion of influence already has observers wondering whether they are allies or competitors with Russia. With actual military forces of all these great powers jostling in close proximity, the potential for conflict only seems to be growing.
Posted in China, Russia, Central Asia, Coalitioning, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, CSTO, India | Tagged China, CSTO, coalitioning, Central Asia, Pakistan, SCO | Leave a Comment »
October 20, 2011
So reports Damon Evans for Petroleum Economist:
Positive geological and geophysical data; reported oil seeps throughout the nation’s sedimentary basins, as well as recent oil discoveries; and the geologic similarity of Mongolia’s hydrocarbon basins to producing basins in neighbouring China, offer explorers a rare opportunity to find significant reserves. US consultancy Gustavson Associates claims there is a high probability of finding substantial resources. But, for now, the country’s potential remains almost unknown. A lack of exploration data makes it impossible to accurately estimate the recoverable reserves.
Posted in Central Asia, new discovery, oil | Tagged Mongolia, oil | Leave a Comment »
October 11, 2011
Once and future Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Hu Jintao begin high level meetings in Beijing today. While the two powers are nominal partners in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a loose alliance of Central Asian states, they often seem to be competitors more than partners. A massive deal that would make Russia the largest supplier of energy to China (and to entwine the two nations’ futures together) has been on the table for a decade but has yet to reach fruition. In the interim, both nations are scrambling for influence and access to (if not control over) the vast, untapped energy supplies of the various Central Asian states. Also, Putin’s vision of integrating the economies of the Central Asian states with that of Russia and other former Soviet states seems to indicate favoritism for Russia’s other Central Asian treaty group (the Collective Security Treaty Organization, CSTO) over the SCO.
While the US was heavily engaged in Central Asia, Russia and China had reason to seek common cause and balance that presence. This was problematic for the US and the West, as a Sino-Russian alliance has the potential to dominate all of Eurasia. As the American adventures in the region wind down, however, the need for those two nations to cooperate diminishes and their more natural competition rises to the surface. A century ago, geostrategists such as Halford Mackinder feared an alliance between Germany and Russia would create a mighty power that would dominate the world. The natural causes for enmity between the two nations ultimately prevented that union from occurring. Now, on the opposite side of the land mass, history may be repeating itself and preventing a similar – and similarly feared – union between Russia and China.
Posted in geopolitics, China, Russia, Central Asia, Coalitioning, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, CSTO, Eurasianism | Tagged russia, China, CSTO, coalitioning, Central Asia, SCO | 2 Comments »
September 29, 2011
Wow, look at the title of this post from The Bug Pit:
The story is neither as straightforward nor as provocative as the headline, but it is still an important read for those interested in the geopolitics of energy – I encourage everyone to go read the whole post. For those who just want a summary: most of the nations in the Caspian basin are (at least potentially) energy rich but militarily weak. There are only two strong militaries in the region – Iran and Russia. Everyone seems to agree that Iran is a threat, and Russia would prefer to be the guarantor of security in the region, rather than see further encroachment of the US (already in the region through it’s NATO junior partners Georgia and Azerbaijan).
Posted in Azerbaijan, Caspian Basin, Central Asia, Coalitioning, CSTO, energy geopolitics, Russia | Tagged Caspian, coalitioning, energy geopolitics, Iran, russia | Leave a Comment »
September 21, 2011
Two recent reports from the invaluable Bug Pit spotlight India’s slow expansion of relatively soft military presence into the formerly Russian controlled nations of Central Asia.
First, from last month, a story noting that the Indian Defence Ministry would begin building a hospital in Tajikistan for Tajik military officers, while at the same time noting India’s expanding ties with Kyrgyzstan’s military – both a training mission and a high-altitude research facility. Now, a month later, news that India will be taking over a torpedo testing and manufacturing facility, built by the Soviets and only recently abandoned by the Russians.
The rising global powers of Russia, China and India are all scrambling to stake out positions in Central Asia, as are regional powers Turkey and Iran. Meanwhile, the reigning global hegemon – the US – maintains probably the most military power in the region, even with the ongoing draw downs in Iraq and Afghanistan. This region is where the coalitioning phase of the Long Cycle is most evident.
Posted in Central Asia, Coalitioning, India | Tagged Central Asia, coalitioning, India | 1 Comment »
September 7, 2011
The CSTO has thus far in its short history proven to be something of a paper tiger. This is not in Russia’s interests, and a think tank chaired by Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has telegraphed Russia’s goal of making the CSTO into a more muscular organization capable of acting as military force in Central Asia and surrounding regions. The first step in this process will be to transform the decision making process of the group by moving to simple majority votes and kicking out the sometimes problematic Uzbeks (in essence, making the CSTO even more Russia-centric). The report also states that the CSTO should seek to work more closely with NATO on shared interests. Such shared interests are probably temporary and transitory, however, as at their core the two organizations are antipodal – the CSTO is inescapably a Eurasian institution while NATO is the definition of a distributed, maritime, globalist institution.
Posted in Atlanticism, Central Asia, Coalitioning, CSTO, Eurasianism, NATO, Russia | Tagged Atlanticism, CSTO, Eurasianism, NATO, russia | Leave a Comment »
June 23, 2011
Short take: We support it. To us, Afghanistan only made sense in conjunction with Iraq. The two operations together brought the US a ring of allies and operational bases in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf that allowed a physical containment of Iran. We have argued for years that should have always been the larger geopolitical objective. Absent that, the operation in Afghanistan should have been a punishment operation meant to shatter al Qaeda on the ground, but with no need for a long term commitment to the nation.
Once the Iraq project was largely abandoned and other US allies in the region began dropping away, an Afghanistan commitment no longer made any sense.
To be clear, we advocated a very long term commitment to both nations, with permanent US military bases as part of a vast regional network. However, the moment to seize that opportunity passed in 2008. A strategy based on a large physical presence in Central/Southwest Asia is no longer in the cards, so it is best to redeploy as quickly as possible. Redeploy to where is the question. Neither American political party has articulated a Grand Strategy for the next decade, although people like Daniel Drezner are hard at work trying to piece one together from the various loose strands lying around.
Posted in Afghanistan, Central Asia, geopolitics, Grand Strategy, strategic geography | 1 Comment »
June 11, 2010
Bruce Pannier, writing for RFE/RL, notes that beneath the smiling surface at the annual meeting of Shanghai Cooperation Organization heads of state this week, the natural competition between Russia and China is gaining strength.
Although the SCO was formed to reduce tensions in Central Asia – especially between Russia and China – each nation still considers the energy rich region to be their natural back yard, and each continues the quest for influence and access among the various nations their. However, as long as the United States has basing rights in some of those nations and has tens of thousands of combat troops in the region, Russia and China will continue to play nice. If, on the other hand, Afghanistan is deemed stable and the US begins to exit the region in 2011 as the Obama Administration plans, then the Russo/Sino rivalry will be made more manifest. The SCO itself could be an early casualty, as since the 1996 founding of the SCO, the Russians formed in 2002 a parallel network in the region, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which is more explicitly a military/security alliance. Also, the CSTO has recently developed an official relationship with the United Nations, which grants it additional cache that the SCO lacks.
When (if) the US vacates the region, it will be interesting to see how the balance of power between the local powers shifts.
Posted in geopolitics, China, Russia, Central Asia, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, CSTO | Leave a Comment »
May 27, 2010
The two day Strategic and Economic Dialogue between the US and China has ended with no apparent deals on any of the most pressing matters. China will not allow its currency to float, it so far remains non-committal on North Korea and it’s support of further sanctions on Iran are best described as abstract and theoretical and reserve the right to balk at specifics.
In fact, far more important to China than these talks with the US are next month’s Council of Heads of States of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Tashkent. SCO foreign ministers were meeting roughly concurrent with Sino/American talks, preparing the ground for the Heads of States meeting. Reportedly, the expansion of the SCO will be on the agenda, with Iran itself petitioning for membership. I doubt that Iran will be extended membership at this point, but Chinese strategic interests are definitely geared more toward keeping Iran close than mollifying a US leadership widely perceived as weak.
Posted in China, Iran, Central Asia, Shanghai Cooperation Organization | Leave a Comment »
May 17, 2010
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is preparing to embrace a new strategic concept for the coming decades. Today, its “Group of Experts” delivered a report that will likely form the core of that concept, although it has yet to be formally accepted by the Alliance and its members. Media outlets in Georgia and Eurasia believe that the report embraces a fairly rapid admission of Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance, but I am not so sure. The report reads to me like it hedges on the question of membership for the Black Sea states, and in fact leans towards keeping the two nations as “partners” and, as such, co-equals with Russia in their relationship to NATO. Personally, I am in favor of extending the alliance to the shores of the Caspian, with Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan admitted as soon as possible, but my take from the report is that the “experts” are too cautious to tender a full invite even to Ukraine and that Georgia is out of luck and Azerbaijan is not even in the conversation.
Posted in Azerbaijan, Caspian Basin, Central Asia, geopolitics, georgia, NATO, Transcaucasus, Ukraine | Leave a Comment »
May 14, 2010
Despite the lack of a treaty with the other Caspian states (Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan), Russia is pressing forward with energy development in the Caspian Sea, launching its first offshore rig last month.
In the not so distant past, the US was in a position to influence – if not dominate – Central Asia, the Caspian basin and the Strategic Energy Ellipse. Today, that position is nearly lost and the Russia-organized Collective Security Treaty Organization and the China-organized Shanghai Cooperation Organization are the dominant players. US influence is in steep decline.
Posted in Caspian Basin, Central Asia, China, geopolitics, Russia, strategic energy ellipse, strategic geography | 1 Comment »
