Steve LeVine covers foreign affairs for Business Week. He previously was correspondent for Central Asia and the Caucasus for The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times for 11 years. His first book, The Oil and the Glory, a history of the former Soviet Union through the lens of oil, was published in October 2007. Putin’s Labyrinth, his new book, profiles Russia through the lives and deaths of six Russians. It was released in June 2008.
As they say, hope springs eternal. But when it comes to All of this has triggered remarks by some human rights activists and State Department officers that Western sanctions against him are working.
Labels: Caspian, central asia, clinton, human rights watch, karimov, torture, uzbekistan
If Steve LeVine's aim … was to chill us to the marrow about post-Communist Russia, he has succeeded.
LeVine's reconstruction of a savagely botched anti-terrorist operation at a Moscow theatre is particularly effective.
With fresh insights into the Chechen wars and Putin’s post-presidency plans, LeVine’s important take on the all-too-real machinations and bloodthirstiness from which espionage thrillers are made is both unnerving and intriguing.
Donna Seaman, Booklist
A gripping account of a fascinating — and little known — region. LeVine brings to life the tycoons, inventors, politicians and crooks of the Caspian.The result is a vivid, compelling, and wonderfully written account of a crucial part of the world.
Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel laureate in economics
For years, Steve LeVine produced relentless, solid reporting about the southern tier of the former Soviet Union.Here, he more than puts it all together. He takes the story to an historical level, thereby producing a great read about the Caspian oil boom.
Robert D. Kaplan, Author of "Balkan Ghosts"
No one knows the murky world of American politics, international oil and corporate corruption in the Caspian better than Steve LeVine.This is an unforgettable story about forgettable fixers and forgettable governments out for the big bucks.
Seymour M. Hersh, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and author
LeVine’s merry romp through the new oil Klondike of the 21st century is a page turner chronicling the exotic activities of oligarchs, oil majors, explorers, crooks, wheeler dealers, pipeline builders, and Caspian politicians. We will hear more about this colorful cast if Russia continues to flex its muscles on energy supplies in the region.
Subscribe in a reader
21 Comments:
The Andijan events made Karimov uninvitable to the capitals in the civilized world. And his third term was too much even by the standards of the judo master resident of the Kremlin.
I wonder if this warming up of relations will repair his reputation and he will be again received by his West European and North American colleagues? Imagine those pesky journos asking him about Andijan at one of those post-summit press conferences. Ah, why do they have to be such party poopers?!
Here's a great idea! Why waste time trying to build a relationship with a fickle and uncooperative fella? You know that any deal will be short-lived and shallow at best.
Why not have a go at making friends with someone who has not proved to be unreliable? Berdymukhamedov. He has everything Karimov has to offer and much more. Of course, the guy is still an unknown quantity, has a short track record, and moves at a glacial pace. But, hey, so far Uncle Berdy has said the right things and has moved in the right directions. Me thinks give it a chance.
Back in 2005, Eurasianet.org reported rumors that the US might be able to use Mary-2, a former Soviet air base as a replacement for the K-2 base. The dentist has been quietly chucking Turkmenbashi's ideas. Maybe the neutrality thing will also go making those rumors a reality. And the Man of the Year 2007 will have less say in Ashgabat than in Tashkent.
Now, how do I patent this great idea? And how do I go about getting royalties if someone uses it?
Well, I am not sure that Berdy is a trustable person. Looking back to his first year in office, what did he do to prove the opposite???
By the way: The USAF is already present in Mary, Turkmenistan
Welcome Dmitri, NP and Mikebn. Karimov indeed would face questions about Andijon. As for Turkmenistan, I get the impression from some of the remarks on the blog that there is a cheering section out there for Berdymukhamedov. The ball is in his court, to use a basketball metaphor. Thanks for the comments, best Steve
Unfortuantely I am not used to basketball metaphors as a German :-) and I am not member of Berdy's cheering section, more the opposite fraction.
Yes Mike your sentiments are plain. That isn't referring to you.
I reckon, Steve is pointing his finger at me when writes of cheerleaders. I can see how a casual reader can mistaken my writings for sycophantism. I shall explain myself.
Mike, you are right that Berdymukhamedov has proved nothing. But that is better than what Karimov has proved to be. And I think that is the point n.p. is making. A finance analogy might be helpful. Banks stay away from customers with poor credit record but they are willing to take a chance on customers with no credit record.
However, there is a larger reason why n.p. makes sense. So far the US has played its hand weakly. For too long the Central Asian dictators have been able to play the US, Russia and China off against each other. Tables ought to be turned on them.
It is true that Russia and China can offer an alternative source of investment and know-how, thereby replacing the US. However, there is one thing that they cannot provide and only the US can give. An international acceptance, sense of respectability. These dictators crave that. They want to be seen sipping Cristal in the company of global leaders at Davos. Even Putin, for all his anti-Western rhetoric, craves recognition by the heads of the G7 states. That is why he did not stand for the unconstitutional third term.
The US should use its leverage and play those Central Asian dictators off against each other. Keep Karimov at arm's length. Get friendly with Ashgabat. Lavish aid on Bishkek. Kyrgyzstan, for all its failings, remains an oasis of relativly liberal politics. Reward it. Redirect to Bishkek all the aid and assistance that Tashkent has spurned. Remember how US aid organizations and NGOs got the boot? For instance, what happened to all those IREX scholarships that had been offered to Uzbekistan? Use them to quadruple the number of Kyrgyz students studying in the US. Keep expanding ties with Kazakhstan but do not reward it. Giving Astana OSCE chairmanship was a mistake: a huge reward coming on heels of rigged elections. Dole out rewards in small dozes but often, in recognition of the small steps in the right direction. Expand educational and cultural programmes with Turkmenistan. Breach the subject of hosting a base at Mary-2. Doing so ought not to be difficult if, as Mike says, USAF is already there. The Western private sector will do its part in helping Turkmenistan to become a global energy player.
Seeing all that Karimov will get absobloodylutely jealous and keen on mending fences. What is more important, the right kind of message will have been sent to everyone. Claims "we are losing them to Russia" are utter rubbish. These lads cannot stand Russia. Memories of having to take orders from the Kremlin are still too fresh. Their relations with the former master is purely a marriage of necessity.
I should hope I have succeeded in making my point clear.
Mike, by the way, do you know what the USAF is doing at Mary? I do not recall reading about it.
Um, guys, don't you think Afghanistan is worth discussing in this context? I mean, Uzbekistan has become an important energy supplier to beleaguered Afghanistan. This proves a vital lifeline to the U.S., NATO allies, and all of the Western troubles vis-a-vis Afghanistan.
Strikes me that the U.S. needs Uzbekistan more than the reverse just now. Karimov has shown himself to be a far shrewder politico and more sagacious, I dare say, than many of us (myself included) gave him credit. This guy is a major survivor.
And speaking of great caudillos, the Chicago Tribune website offered footage of an exploding Mayor Daley as he berated some aldermen who weren't on the same page with him where certain tax hikes were concerned with the mayor's current budget. The resemblance between Chicago's mayor and Uzbekistan's leader in terms of their oratorical styles and demagoguery was impressive.
Afghanistan is definitely worth discussing in this context. I'm not sure if I'd agree with either Mike or N.P. here but wasn't everyone talking of Uzbekistan as an unreliable energy supplier to its neighbors? Some people even claimed gas and electricity were being used to put political pressure on the Kyrgyzs and Tajiks.
Meanwhile folks at neweurasia.net are reporting that Turkmenistan is becoming a major donor to Afghanistan: http://turkmenistan.neweurasia.net/2008/02/09/turkmen-humanitarian-assistance/
That, of course, doesn't make Berdy a nice guy, contrary to what N.P might believe. Berdy might turn out to be as ruthless but shrewder than Karimov. Or Mayor Daley even. I mean, shrewder than the Chicago boss.
Russell: I must say I'm surprised to hear such language out of you especially.
But let's be straight on the facts. Karimov did not invent the Uzbekistan -Afghanistan energy relationship. The Soviets have sent natural gas into Afghanistan for decades. A direct line was built into Mazar-i-Sharif. So it doesn't take a huge amount of sagacity simply not to turn the line off (as he has done to the Kyrgyz, the Tajiks and the Kazakhs when he saw fit over the years, including for political leverage).
Does that make him more necessary to the U.S. than visa versa? I'm not certain what the balance sheet is. What is the value to Karimov of a strong relationship with the West? Is he thinking economic benefits? Military benefits? Something different?
Whatever is going on in that opaque mind, one can be sure that it's not simple and straightforward. Nor will it be durable.
Laszlo: your arguments make eminent sense.
As for Mayor Daley, I'll stay out of that topic.
Thanks folks. Best Steve
Cheering section! LOL. C'mon, guys, put your dark suspicion aside for a sec. Join me on a journey! We'll follow the facts wherever they may take us. Like Russell said, let's look at Afghanistan!
the BBC, Oct. 2001: "Turkmenistan: Gateway to the starving.The World Food Programme has already sent dozens of trucks filled with food supplies through here."
CBS News, Nov. 2001:"Humanitarian Aid Held Up. Aid Has Yet To Come Into Afgahnistan From Uzbekistan."
US DoE, Feb. 2006:"Turkmenistan supplies electricity to much of northwestern Afghanistan, including Mazar-i-Sharif and Herat. Uzbekistan also supplies electricity to the northern area around Mazar-i-Sharif, supplementing a small local gas-fired power plant."
Reuters, Feb. 2008:"Newly open Turkmenistan sends aid to Afghanistan"
"Seek truth from facts!"
(Deng Xiaoping)
"I don't care if it's a white cat or a black cat. It's a good cat so long as it catches mice."
(Deng Xiaoping)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/
hi/asia-pacific/1620187.stm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2001/11/21/terror/main318833.shtml?source=search_story
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs
/Afghanistan/Full.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/
latestCrisis/idUSL07887408
Glad this thread is turning into such a lively discussion.
Yes, Steve, I surprise myself. But all joking aside, I am not endorsing this cretin in any way, shape, or form, but pointing out that there's more to him as a pol than simple rapacious dictator. And I agree that keeping a power transfer going into Afghanistan is not exactly a hallmark of sagacity; I think I reserve that qualification for his endurance within the Uzbek political system as well as his knack for manipulating diverse powers.
What I was told by a certain someone who works for a certain institution is that in addition to supplying energy to Mazar, there are also plans to get Uzbekistan to supply electricity to Kabul, and that the U.S. sees Uzbekistan as a stabilizing neighbor and outside force in now imperiled Afghanistan.
Clearly the Soviets supplied energy to Afghanistan for many years, but this obviously didn't matter to the U.S. in the way it does now, so I consider that past relationship as moot.
Furthermore, supposedly the U.S. continues to want to counteract the Chinese in Central Asia, and this reason may also account for why the U.S. keeps returning to engage Karimov.
As unpalatable as he is, he remains a militant secularist and a leader who is pro-Western on his own brutal terms. And, yeah, I see the contradiction there. As blinded or wrongheaded as many think the U.S. may be in its strategies to defend against Muslim terrorism and extremism, Karimov looks to be an ally whom U.S. rightists see as occasionally murderous but reliable. Is he unpredictable? Yes, but he isn't a maniacal moron.
Steve, I am afraid, now you may need two fingers to do the pointing. My impression is we may have two cheering sections already. In the red corner is N.P. with his shamelessly pro-Berdymukhamedov stance. In the blue corner is Russell who is utilising a rather tortured logic to convince us that Karimov is pro-Western and the US needs him more than he needs the US.
I suggest we turn this two-way slanging match into a ding-dong where everyone is for himself. I need to consult "The Black Book of Communism" to offer some wicked ideas of my own. In the meanwhile, perhaps, Steve and others can pile in.
Russell, I reckon, your latest argument offers a lateral shift in the discussion. That is,of course, welcome. But I am pressed to note that no one here has expressed any doubt about the intellect of any of the Central Asian leaders. It is a fact that each is a smart, quick thinking politician. There is a proof. They have succeeded in places where pursuing a career in politics is a genuine health hazard. God forbid saying any one is "a maniacal moron". Those do not last long. You will recall two such leaders: Hitler and Mussolini. In contrast, the Central Asian leaders are graduates of an efficacious school of politics. The school was founded by none other than Joseph Stalin himself. He was a very clever bloke, indeed. He had outwitted all of his opponents. (By the by, I find it somewhat humourous that you say "he is not a moron" after saying "cretin".)
Returning to the issue the commentators were debating. Namely, who the West can and ought to do business with. I fear, "militant secularist" and pro-Westerness "on one's own brutal terms" could easily be a liability, not an asset. You will recall the trajectory and impact of one leader in possession of those qualities: Reza Pehlevi. In regards of the West's self-interest, the litmus test ought to be:"Is this particular leader willing to pursue both his own selfish interests, such as wealth and power, and the larger interests of his own country?" Such leaders make for more lasting, predictable and effective partners. With them, the West can pursue partnerships in a mutually beneficial manner. You will recall two such leaders: Eduard Schevardnadze and Heydar Aliev. They were neither pro- or anti-Western. But they cooperated reliably with the West in a win/win manner. I should like to think that one can say that Nazarbaev has been similarly inclined. Perhaps, their record ought to serve as a yardstick to measure up both Berdymukhamedov and Karimov for future partnerships.
Russell, you are, probably, right that the US will want to counteract the Chinese in Central Asia. I reckon, the Central Asian states would most likely welcome such a balancing effect. Because they are followers of "multivectored" policies. But, perhaps, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan would make more attractive partners in regards of such an effort. Both abut China and Afghanistan and both have been open to a greater Western presence. As is known, they have been willing to host a French and an American air base, respectively. But I should look forward to N.P.'s marshalling in strong arguments in Turkmenistan's favour in this case as well.
I promise herewith never again to use the term "cheering section" in connection with our commenters.
On to the discussion.
Russell, we've known each other a long time -- 16 years by my count. You've lived years in Namangan. You speak Uzbek. You are a published author on the region. In short, your credentials are impeccable.
Still, I see no upside for the U.S. forming a fresh alliance with Karimov.
The items that you mention are positive on their own merits (i.e., Hamid Karzai, an internationalist after all, himself can sign a deal for Uzbek electricity for Kabul. And it is in Karimov's own interest to be stable; he doesn't need to be a U.S. ally in order to become, as your sources believe, a stabilizing force in the region. Likewise, it is to his benefit to keep China at bay.).
Personally, I think that Karimov on balance is a negative and destabilizing force. His economic policies, for instance, are pushing thousands of his people over the border into Kazakhstan in search of employment. His repression breeds the type of resentment that fuels extremism. Is the U.S. prepared to explain away the outrages that he will predictably commit as the relationship goes forward?
In short, U.S. goals can be accomplished without getting into bed with Karimov.
Thoughts?
As Lazlo had posted in an earlier string of comments regarding Turkmenistan, the US approach to UZ is equally flawed. All of the noise and rhetoric about 'democracy' and 'human rights' has had zero impact on the ground in UZ and in fact turned the Boss in the opposite direction.
Seems as though Karimov, Nazarbayev, others around these parts are no longer caught up in the US 2- and 4- year election 'spin cycle' and 'discussions on core values' blah blah blah. Karimov doesn't really care about the US, other than just not wanting the US to lead a war against them, that's about it.
For some odd reason, it seems the US DOD really likes their Uzbek counterparts...DOD has been putting a little extra money into constructing rather large and heavy duty border posts in the Termez area.
So, while the US really might not enjoy the company of the people in charge in Tashkent, there is probably an 'agreement to disagree' on various subjects, and moving on.
Having been in Tashkent during the time that the US had K2 operating...I don't really see how a lot of value (or values) accrued to the local Uzbek population...except, of course, the contributions of the KBR contractors...keeping the young ladies at the Hotel Tashkent fully occupied from Friday to Sunday. Exporting Democracy and Homespun Values - that's what we're all about! Yeah!
Perhaps that also contribute's to Karimov's list of 'why I don't really care what the US thinks about me and how I run the country'.
Gentlemen,
Had a long commentary written up last night only to have it vanish before my eyes. Nothing like composing in cyberspace.
In a hurry, so I'll keep my comments, tortured logic, and contradictory metaphors to a minimum.
Anonymous is right when he says Karimov and the Karimovites really don't care what the U.S. thinks.
Laszlo suggests we can play dictators off, changing policies sort of willy-nilly, and that will get Karimov into a jealous pique... Not only do I disagree, but what kind of administration or administrations will play such games given the energy and security stakes it perceives are at least important in Cen Asia.
My point (s) for the record have never been to endorse or support the Uzbek regime, but to try and understand the claculus of U.S. foreign policy in a region where I've invested a ot of my own energy as a social scientist. Basically, I think the U.S. would be perfectly happy with a repressive karimov, but he goes anf gets grotesque on them from time to time, and that just doesn't look so good in a post-Soviet ally.
As for Afghanistan, I really don't know how energy policy is handled and negotiated; others, Steve included, know far more. My point is to raise the idea that the U.S. plays a determining role in how energy gets into Afghanistan, to say nothing of its infrastructure and distribution at this point. Am I wrong? The other important issue is that the U.S. wants at least the appearance of neighbors getting involved in the future well being of this country. Uzbekistan fits the bill. Steve, I don't disagree that the place is not exactly a beacon of stability, but the Uzbeks have positioned themselves--symbolically at least--as secular and Western. And actually, Laszlo, there ain't much that's tortured in that (some Uzbek citizens notwithstanding).
Part of the reason Karimov doesn't need the U.S. is that he's got Russia. Please check out the latest set of agreements between these two countries. Anyone who thinks this is a phony relationship, and theat the Uzbeks hate Russians because of the Soviet style of "colonialism" really needs to get to know Central Asians better. This idea strikes me largely as a fiction; this is the devil the Uzbeks know.
Karimov is not comparable to the Shah of Iran. It's a tempting comparison b/c of the U.S. role, but do some reading in history. Karimov is more akin to the last Pahlavi's father. Karimov is an insider apparatchik, and he has the pulse of Uzbekistan in ways far deeper and grounded than one could argue the Shah ever did in 1970s Iran.
Time will tell, friends, time will tell.
First, I wish to offer an apology to Russell. Today I can see what I did not yesterday. "Tortured logic" was an unwarranted qualifier. I regret if it has caused irritation. Another point I am reminded of is that irritating each other lowers the quality of this exchange of opinions. I shall bear that in mind.
I should like to confine myself to recapitulating my main points.
The US underestimates its leverage. It can give or withhold what Russia or China will never be able to offer. A sense of international acceptance. That feeling is important to dictators. Those lads have big egos. That is why they have managed to become rulers.
Energy policy and energy security are important issues. But Uzbekistan is not a factor in regards to them. Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan are such factors. And th e US policy goals there have been well maintained. I should like to think that the same would be said soon in regards to Turkmenistan. In respect of Afghanistan, Uzbekistan could be an energy contributor. But Tashkent's record and Steve's comments have sewn doubts in my mind.
No risk of Uzbekistan falling into the Russian orbit. Those leaders do not trust each other at all. You can deduce it from the hasty nature of Putin's invitation and Karimov's visit, coming on the heels of US admiral's visit. Why is the haste? Russia cannot trust even Belarus, its closest ally. You can see it from their tense relationship. How can it trust a wily ruler in a far more distant country on which it does not even border?
As a response to the 16th commentator. I fear, any reform can come only from within the ruling elite. For example, attempts at reform both in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 were made not by general population or oppositionists and dissidents. The efforts were made by the Communist party elite. Both Dubcek and Nagy were part of the power elite. In other words, the most the US can do is to help keep the curtains off the windows. By offering college scholarships to students and training to civil servants and journalists. Thereby planting seeds of the long-term change.
But I agree with Russel that time will tell.
Good enough, Laszlo. I really do not think you owe me any apology. I welcome debate, wit, sarcasm here and there, and I try not to take myself all that seriously.
Your contributions are very important to OG, and I respect your comments and analyses. I enjoy learning from you and others. Robust debate is the only way we can advance knowledge and awareness of what the heck is going on.
Let's carry on.
putin and karimov don't like each other...they are both using each other...but what more karimov has to offer for putin?
putin used karimov to push out usa....putin got his oil and gas deals out of uzbekistan....
going forward, karimov is a liability for both russia and kazakhstan in terms of instability from karimov's brutal rule...
re afghanistan and uzbekistan...karimov does not want afghanistan to succeed...why? he fears spread of democracy...that is why he not cooperating with finishing the work on 26km of electric transmission lines that connects with afghanistan....and on the afghanistan side, probably the officials there know that karimov is not a reliable partner...that is , at any time he can turn of the electricity...therefore, the odds of improved relations between uzbekistan and afghanistan is very low...
turkmenistan has been much important trade partner for afghanistan...and also kazakhstan has more trade with afghanistan...
uzbekistan could have been a major player in the region but its history of being unreliable partner has made it insignificant...
I agree with orta asia's assessment about the Boss's view on spreading democracy, but given the love that the NATO partners are showing each other these days, I don't think he feels too threatened on that count.
Regarding UZ/RU relations, the best thing for the Uzbeks would be to allow more Russian investment, in whatever form possible...but this damages the sensitive Uzbek leader's ego too much (ie, 'we will not depend on anyone!!'). Now that the big guy feels that the Russians NEED Uzbek gas, then as Steve points out, back to the same old games.
But I do not agree with the point on selling electricity to Afghanistan. I sense that - especially in light of the brutal winter in UZ - the government is trying to move towards technocratic values. Coal is abundant in the south of UZ, gas is moving north (and domestic gas and electricity prices are getting high, in real terms), and as long as the coalition is in place the money can flow.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home