Lord Zalmay

It seemed that the British had the most nerve of any nation on Earth when it came to Afghan politics. Even after the debacle of losing their entire Kabul garrison of 16,000 men, woman and children in 1842 when they attempted to keep their man, Shah Shuja, on the Afghan throne, they returned for yet more bloody noses.

I know that this must be a joke, but just in case it isn’t, we Americans seem prepared to upstage British chutzpah. According to John Barry and Michael Hirsh at Newsweek, Zalmay Khalilzad, the former American ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq and the current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is seriously considering running for Afghan president.

Hamid Karzai is already regarded in many quarters as a stooge of the Americans. I happen to like Hamid as a person, but as with Shah Shuja he’s able to stay on the throne only because of the support of foreign troops.

Now the Afghan-born Khalilzad – a former Rand analyst known in the 1980s for his stubborn intellectual support for the bloodthirsty mujahedin leader Gulbedin Hekmatyar – at least according to this report seems to think he’ll step in and show the Afghans how a country should really be run.

If true, Khalilzad has forgotten the first rule of a westerner going abroad as a reporter or a journalist, which is to avoid the delusions of Lord Jim.

Think 1842. Think overthrow. Think Taliban restoration.

How to Tarnish A Hard-Won Reputation

It's not a household name in the United States, but in the former Soviet Union the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is a source both of irritation and solace. The distinction depends on whether you are one of the region's autocrats or one of its independent thinkers.

Whichever the case, the OSCE -- financed in large part by the U.S. -- has played a hard-fought, 16-year role as Europe's official conscience.

Until now. The OSCE has bafflingly jeopardized its reputation as Europe's premier human rights watchdog in order to satisfy an understandable if misguided campaign by Kazakhstan for the prized chair of the organization.

Last Friday, the OSCE for publicly unknown reasons succumbed to Kazakhstan's full-court press on the issue, and announced that the Central Asian republic will take over the one-year chair a little over two years from now, in 2010.

Kazakhstan is hardly the region's worst human-rights violator. But neither is its record worthy of holding up as an example, which is what the chair represents. This is a country that has never held a fair election; although President Nursultan Nazarbayev has led the country since 1989, there's no way to know for sure that he actually ever won a contested election.

Nazarbayev has never permitted a genuine opponent to run against him, and like his neighbor to the north, Vladimir Putin, he has routinely beefed up the election results to show swelled support. He recently signed a law allowing him to serve as president for life. And there's no evidence that, short of his own death, Nazarbayev will ever agree to give up the post; to the contrary, the probability is that he'll stay on the job for years to come.

If the OSCE states wished an example from the former Soviet Union, why not choose Ukraine? For all its flaws, it has been holding truly competitive presidential elections for some 13 years. Or better yet, how about Georgia? There, Mikheil Saakashvili has actually stepped down from the presidency in order to run in a snap election next month.

Kazakhstan ran its OSCE campaign through its own offices and the paid help of lobbying groups like APCO in Washington. It's not clear to me what precisely turned the tide, but the OSCE decision is appalling, in my opinion. It will be hard-pressed to recover its reputation.

Is There Political Will on the Caspian?

The presidents of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are in New York this week for the United Nations General Assembly. While together in a neutral environment, they could take the first step to resolving the pipeline morass that has bedeviled their half of the Caspian Sea for fifteen years. That would mean getting out of their luxury hotel suites, dispensing with the hallowed meetings with oilmen lining up to kiss the presidential ring, and announcing that they intend to build a joint oil and natural gas pipeline system across the Caspian to Baku.

Why should they take a rest from such accouterments and risk the predictable firestorm with Russia? Because it’s the only way they will finally obtain a measure of true political independence. Once they make that commitment, oil companies and western governments can help realize it.

Since the Soviet breakup, Russia has wielded what a former National Security Council officer named Sheila Heslin called its “iron umbilical cord” to hold the Caspian republics in check. Heslin’s term referred to the former Soviet energy pipeline system, which channels almost all the region’s oil and natural gas exports through Russia. When it is so moved, Russia just switches off the spigot.

In just one recent example of what it means to be reliant on the Russian system, Chevron and Exxon Mobil last week were effectively forced to agree to a large tariff increase for an oil pipeline that runs from Kazakhstan through Russia, even though it’s private and not ostensibly under Russian state control. The tariff increase is part of a Russian squeeze before it agrees to the companies’ plan to double the pipeline’s capacity and export more oil from Kazakhstan’s supergiant Tengiz oilfield.

In Turkmenistan’s case, it has its hopes pinned on a Chinese pledge to link the countries through a $26 billion natural gas pipeline. If it's actually built, the pipeline will be crucial to Central Asia’s economic and thus political independence. But this is the same China that has vowed for a decade to build a much cheaper oil pipeline to Kazakhstan, a pipeline that has yet to be finished. If it takes comparatively long in Turkmenistan, the line should be finished by mid-century.

In the mid-1990s, Azerbaijan and Georgia decided to reject Russia’s energy stranglehold, and spearhead the construction of an oil pipeline to Turkey, avoiding Russia entirely. With then-Azerbaijan leader Heydar Aliyev taking the lead locally, the Clinton administration backed the line on the world stage, and pushed the oil companies to build and finance it. A year ago, the first oil began moving through the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, and natural gas will come, too.

But Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan cut themselves off from the East-West link by refusing to concretely back a trans-Caspian spoke to the Baku hub.

The Kazakh and Turkmen presidents may think that such a pipeline will simply be built, and that then they will use it. But the countries have it reversed – they themselves must take charge of their future.