HOME	Your Most Trusted Source of Foreign News About the United States

By Jean Tekey Jr.

July 8, 2005

Original Article (English)

Ancient Kazakh Sayings:

“Orystan joldasyng bolsa, ay-baltang dayar bolsyn.” (If you have a Russian friend, always have your axe ready.")

“Qara Qitay qaptasa, sary orys akengdey bolar.” ("If Black Chinese come, White Russians will seem like your own father.")

An event that might be significant for the nations of the former Soviet region has been the gathering of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in the Kazakh capital of Astana on Tuesday, July 5.  The organization was created in the early 1990s under the pretext of resolving border issues left over between China and four of the former Soviet Republics – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation and Tajikistan.  The five countries admitted a new member – Uzbekistan – and four junior members with observer status – India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan, in 2005. 

As Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev stated in his opening speech on Tuesday, now one may say that the organization represents half of humankind. That was a clear attempt to stress the importance of the organization and its role on the global stage.  Beside the fact that most of these countries all border China, what is it that holds these countries together?

By 1999-2000 all border issues between the four former Soviet republics and China had basically been resolved.  Why does the Shanghai Cooperation Organization not only continue to exist, but seems to be challenging the rest of the world and seeks to expand its influence?

High-level Indian and Mongolian officials at the summit made it clear that their main reason for seeking observer status in the organization was economic.  According to the officials, the SCO’s economic potential is very high, and they don’t want to miss out on any economic opportunities that result from its activities.  Pakistan’s admittance to the organization might be explained by an unwillingness to allow long-term rival India into the organization without its own presence. Representatives of other member stressed different issues. Why?

It is clear that the two leading countries in the SCO with full-membership are China and Russia. What is it that gets these two rival-monsters to hang together? There seems to be several reasons.

In a fast-changing world, Putin is trying to find allies to create a counterweight to Western influence in global affairs.  To enhance Russia’s influence, playing the China card is essential for Putin. It is quire clear what nations form the core of the SCO, if you take into account of the fact that both China and Russia, as members of the U.N. Security Council, have quite significant status within that the U.N. organization.

During the Kazakh president’s statement at a press conference on Tuesday, he mentioned several times, the “joint efforts of SCO member-states against international terrorism.” To several member-states of the organization, this issue seems to be of more importance than economic cooperation. 

After September 11, 2001, Putin’s Russia and Chinese leaders jumped immediately into the U.S. boat called “the fight against international terrorism.” To be precise, the Kremlin and Beijing began propaganda campaigns to turn all national liberation movements on their territories into part of so-called international terrorist activities.

Russia’s “Chechen” headache is very similar to China’s “Uyghur” problem.  10 million indigenous Turkic-speaking people of Muslim Uyghur in Eastern Turkistan, called by China Xinjiang, (which means "New Frontier" in Chinese), has been fighting for its independence many decades. For a short period of time, from 1948 to 1951, Eastern Turkistan existed as an independent state. The history of the Chechen resistance to the expansion of the Russian Empire is also very well-known. Putin, whom U.S. President George W. Bush often calls “my friend Vladimir,” does his best to “prove” that the Chechen resistance in nothing but a cell of al-Qaeda in the North Caucasus. But this is to ignore the historic fact that for several centuries, the Chechen nation has been fighting for independence, long before either the phenomenon of international terrorism or al-Qaeda even existed. This seems to be the basis of the current marriage between the Russian Bear to the Chinese Dragon. 

Interestingly, “terrorism” turns out to be a very important word in the vocabulary of other leaders on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Uzbek President Islam Karimov denounced the participants at a peaceful demonstration in Andijan in May as “terrorists,” trying to justify his decision to open fire on the protesters, among who were women and children. The number of those who lost their lives in the Andijan massacre remains unclear. Witnesses, such as Galima Bukharbayeva of the Institute of War and Peace [Reporting], say that hundreds if not thousands were shot dead before their very eyes. [The Institute for War & Peace Reporting is an NGO that works with local journalists in areas of conflict]. In fact, the Uzbek leader calls all the demonstrators “terrorists,” even though many of the protesters called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to look into the issues they were raising. 

But if all of the demonstrators had been Islamic terrorists and militants, is it likely that they would have called for the Russian President to interfere? The answer is clearly and simply no.

Of the hundreds of Uzbek refugees who fled Uzbekistan to neighboring Kyrgyzstan after the Andijan tragedy, the majority were women, children and the elderly. After finding himself under harsh criticism from the Western democracies for his decision to discharge the Andijan protests by force, the Uzbek leader seems to have found that his sympathies lie more with Russia and China, the nations that expressed open support for his actions in Andijan.

Kazakh President Nazarbayev indirectly supported his Uzbek colleague’s deeds in Andijan during a press conference in Astana on Friday, July 1, as well. He defined the Andijan riot as a “terrorist action” and said that Uzbek government had no choice but to shoot the demonstrators.  Why did the Kazakh President make such a statement now?  Nursultan Nazarbayev is usually much more cautious when speaking of terrorism and terrorists.  It looks like the Kazakh President wanted to make clear for those planning to organize demonstrations similar to the so-called “colorful revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan,” that such attempts would end like those in Andijan. The Kazakhstan presidential election is scheduled for December. 

Speaking of “colorful revolutions” -- Acting Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev, who came to power riding the wave of the “tulip revolution” in Bishkek earlier this year, now finds himself amongst those who openly espouse opening fire against such revolutions.  Something of a paradox, one may say. But Mr. Bakiyev’s has no choice but to play along. Representing the weakest country in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Kurmanbek Bakiyev has no other choice. He needs support from Russia and his more powerful neighbors during the Kyrgyzstan presidential elections scheduled for July 10.  It is clear that the Kremlin still plays an important political role in the Central Asian states, especially in Kyrgyzstan. After all, even ousted Kyrgyz leader Askar Akayev fled to Moscow, saving his life if not his reputation 

Iran is a country that has been trying to expand its influence in Central Asia since the Soviet Union collapsed. But surely, isn’t it a bit strange to see Iran in the same club with Russia and China – its greatest rivals in the “struggle for Central Asia?” 

One of the most important resolutions adopted at the Organization’s summit of was a request to the U.S. leadership to outline a schedule for the dismantling of U.S. military bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. This was a clear challenge to U.S. foreign policy and its military presence in Central Asia. It is also an explicit answer to the question of why Iran is an observer within the SCO. The stand-off between Washington and Tehran has been going on for more than a quarter century, and it is clear that for Iran, it is more convenient to be at odds with the U.S. in the company of Russia and China than to be so alone. 

The U.S. officially rejected the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s request to agree to a timetable of U.S. abandonment of Central Asia any time in the near future. But this request from the SCO seems to be just the beginning. One thing is very clear: the “Great Game” for Central Asia goes on, and America’s position in that old game is directly challenged by autocratic regimes in Russia and China. 

Meanwhile, the dictators of Central Asia whom Bush Administration have often called “strategic partners” in the U.S.-led fight against international terrorism, seems to be looking for additional allies, especially as the Western world has been imposing new pressure on Washington demanding more openness, transparency, freedoms and democratization for Central Asia. It looks like time for the Bush Administration to put its position on international terrorism, religious extremism and strategic partnership more in line with its public statements. 

In his inauguration speech earlier this year, George W. Bush stressed that U.S. policy on the liberation of nations suffering under dictatorship would continue. But in what form and under what approach would such a White House policy function? What is more important to the Bush Administration: The expansion of democracy around the world or its strategic partnerships with dictatorships? That is the question the current U.S. leadership needs to find a proper answer for.