USA: Asian shift?
As reported in January "Asian Reporter"Obama’s government seems willing to give diplomatic priority to the Asia-Pacific region. In April, Mr. Obama is going to make a tour of Asia. The US is stepping up efforts to regroup its armed forces in the APR and is preparing to conclude a free trade agreement within the framework of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The last project on “VO” was described in detail in the article. “Trans-Pacific Partnership as a reverse side of market liberalism”and today we will talk about the main Asian vectors of American foreign policy.Home news, which politicians and the military, and analysts with them, are waiting for the coming 2014 of the year - this is the alleged withdrawal (or not entirely withdrawal) of the Western coalition troops from Afghanistan. Experts are sure: the withdrawal of the International Security Assistance Force from the country will push Central Asia to destabilize the situation, and even to a catastrophe. ISAF withdrawal is designed for twelve months.
The security pact between Afghanistan and the United States has not been signed. The White House is trying to convince President Karzai to sign an appropriate cooperation agreement, and Karzai will be stubborn. In December, his stubbornness was manifested quite frankly: the head of the Afghan state told Washington: let my successor sign this paper.
Mr. Obama needs a pact so that the American military contingent and partially the ISAF troops can remain on Afghan soil after the 2014 year. From this we can assume that Obama is not going to withdraw his entire military.
But Karzai has other plans. Feeling the weakness of the Obama administration and the closeness of the Taliban, he dodges as he can. In addition to legislative activities in the field of Sharia, which recently surprised human rights defenders, Karzai became interested in geopolitical confrontation with America: he said that the US should stop all military operations affecting Afghan civilians (US military should stop invading the homes of Afghan citizens), and release Afghan prisoners from Guantanamo prison. Obama, who never managed to close the infamous torture prison, in response scares Karzai with a suspension of financial assistance (which is roughly 4 billion dollars annually). However, Obama himself probably doesn’t believe in the last one: large American business is interested in sending this aid, and the US president will not go on reducing or freezing. One way or another, Karzai does not sign the Obama security pact. She found a scythe on a stone.
Now the number of US military contingent in Afghanistan is 47 thousand people. After 2014, Obama expects to leave at least 8 thousand soldiers in the country. Officially, these people will continue to train the armed forces of Afghanistan, as well as assist them in operations. However, all this forks on the water was written.
The President of Afghanistan understands that many frontier states are against the American and Western presence in his country - one Iran is worth it. December 9 presidents of Afghanistan and Iran signed an agreement on friendship and long-term cooperation. The new agreement touched the areas of security, politics, economy and culture.
A number of experts believe that even if several thousand American military remain in Afghanistan, this will not change the weather. “Forecasters” predict the total Islamist radicalization of the country after 2014: the Taliban will rule here, as they did in the old days, strengthening themselves from one region to another. 8000 soldiers are not able to conduct major operations and provide security. Afghan forces are not capable of this either. As a result, Afghanistan will gradually be ruled by the Taliban. And then radical Islam will move to Tajikistan, to the Fergana Valley, to Uzbekistan. Other analysts believe that Russia may intervene in a series of Islamist conflicts, and then it will get something like a permanent hotbed of instability, which can’t be settled simply because of the complex network structure of terrorists, but also their fortification in Afghanistan under the wing of the Taliban . The only way out for Russians is to increase the defense capacity of the same Tajikistan and control the border. However, this is not as easy as it seems: strengthening the border can take several years and significant costs. And the Russians are now busy with an internal unstable situation (terrorist attacks in Volgograd) and preparations for the Olympics. It turns out that the issue of the withdrawal of Western troops from Afghanistan may be key to the regional security of a number of states - from Afghanistan itself to Russia.
Meanwhile, for the United States, the Karzai patrimony is question number two or three. The first item on the geopolitical agenda for Washington today is Beijing.
23 December 2013 on "Voice of America" An article by Daniel Shirf appeared, in which the analyst recalls that China’s unexpected decision to expand the air defense identification zone in the territory disputed by Japan and South Korea was a topic for D. Biden’s open conversation with Xi Jinping. Washington is maneuvering. Speaking at Jensei University in South Korea, Biden said: "... speaking on behalf of the president, I made it absolutely clear that we do not recognize this zone." He added: “This will not affect the activities of the American armed forces. No Absolutely nothing. I also made it clear that we expect from China the absence of any actions that could lead to an escalation of tension or cause such a risk. ” But in the end, the United States stated that flights of American airlines would follow the new requirements, providing in advance a flight plan to the Chinese authorities and being in touch with them during their stay in the new air defense zone. South Korea, which refused to comply with China’s requirements, then also announced that its commercial airlines would follow the lead of the United States.
Dan Pinkston of the International Crisis Group believes the risk to aviation from the expansion of the Chinese air defense zone is exaggerated. It is not in the Chinese interests to engage in any hostile actions.
Nevertheless, the actions of China described have given rise to calls for Washington to make a turn toward Asia and strengthen relations with Japan and South Korea.
Igor Siletsky ("Voice of Russia") notes that the interests of the United States are increasingly shifting from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific region. The United States engaged in the “shale revolution” is no longer urgently needed in such partners as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The least predictable player in the Asia-Pacific Region (DPRK) is largely under Chinese control. Beijing will strengthen the economic and military potential to ensure leadership in the APR, and Washington, in cooperation with the opponents of the Middle Kingdom, will try to restrain this process. And the Americans will not be easy. They surrendered their positions on Syria, on Iran, and surrendered on the same Afghanistan. But nuclear Beijing is not Kabul.
As for Central Asia, here the interests of the United States collide with Russian ones. The article by Jeffrey Mankoff “US Policy in Central Asia after 2014 of the Year”, published in Pro et Contra (Carnegie Moscow Center), it is noted that in the next ten years, the Central Asian states will have to face more acute internal challenges than the danger of external domination in the region. Accordingly, after the 2014 of the year, Washington will face fundamentally different tasks than in the 1990s.
The author believes that Russian domination does not threaten regional stability now, as it was in the first years after the collapse of the USSR, but this stability is threatened by bad governance, corruption and mutual distrust. Weak Central Asia is dangerous for Russia. Therefore, Russia has a significant military presence (more than 7000 soldiers in Tajikistan plus a smaller military contingent in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, plus opportunities within the CSTO) and thus can participate in ensuring the security of the region after the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. It is in this direction that Washington should work.
“Now the states of Central Asia (in particular, thanks to the efforts of Washington in the 1990-s) have stable relations with many foreign partners, and neither Russia's military presence, nor its ambitious plans for regional integration within the framework of the Customs Union, CSTO or the Eurasian Union They represent such a danger for the sovereignty of the states of Central Asia that the control of their vital communications from Russia in the 1990s represented. As Brzezinski asserted in 1997, while the US must break the monopoly on access to Central Asia, which Russia had at that time, “the complete ousting of Russia from this region is neither desirable nor feasible, as is the incitement of hostility between new states this region and Russia. " Now that Russia’s monopoly is in the past, the United States and its allies should seriously think about how to ensure that Russia’s defense of its permanent interests in this region helps solve problems of mutual interest. ”
The author, we note, is quite objective. In his opinion, the political and economic landscape in Central Asia is becoming increasingly multipolar, and hence Washington’s concern about the independence of the region loses its meaning. After all, Moscow’s efforts in the direction of post-Soviet integration, which H. Clinton called for not so long ago, are not an attempt at Sovietization, but only strengthening Russia's weakening regional influence. The attitude of the United States to these efforts is, to a large extent, alas, determined by cold-war thinking. This, in turn, prevents the White House from impartially assessing the possibilities of interaction with Russia. But the use of the US attempts by Russia to integrate in Central Asia will allow Washington to indirectly influence the sources of problems in Central Asia - even after the US troops leave Afghanistan.
Today, the analyst notes, Washington has no reason to oppose the widespread presence in the region of Russia. It would help the local states to protect their borders, fight drug trafficking and militants. The United States should focus on the problems of public administration in Central Asia. Discussion with local partners of methods for restoring a destroyed judicial system and institutional reforms in the security sector is what the White House should do. Well, in terms of the economy, the United States should welcome the influx of Chinese, Indian, Turkish and other foreign investments into Central Asia. Foreign capital would be a factor in the large-scale involvement of Central Asia in the world economy.
At the same time, the author gives this advice to Obama:
"In addition, the United States must be careful in terms of new supplies weapons in this already unstable region. Efforts to reform the local armed forces and security forces should be aimed at increasing their effectiveness in dealing with the problems they face at home, and not mean reorienting them to the West simply for the sake of weakening Russia's influence. ”
The expert does not recommend the White House to give Central Asia to the Russians, and at the end of it he ironically observes the backwardness of the thinking of the Washington rulers:
“... although it would be useful for Washington to cooperate with the Russians and the Chinese in order to maintain stability in this region, you should not just leave this region to them. And in the coming decade, the United States in Central Asia should be concerned primarily with choosing the right balance between presence and self-restraint, cooperation with the neighbors of Central Asia, and ensuring a flexible strategic balance. For this, Washington needs a strategy based on knowledge of the real state of affairs in today's Central Asia, and not just nostalgia for the past. ”
In principle, we add on our own, cooperation and partnership instead of pressure, crowding out and humanitarian bombing - these are exactly the methods that the United States uses extremely rarely, but which the new multi-polar world has at its disposal. Aggressive rhetoric in the spirit of Hillary Clinton (this embodied image of the Cold War) is a manifestation rather historicalthan actual. The “Resetization,” which Clinton spoke of, as well as her slogan “Assad must go,” as well as the “Wow” cry regarding Gaddafi’s death, are examples of backward thinking from the era of the bipolar world. Therefore, the advice of Jeffrey Mankoff is quite accurate: it is finally time for the White House to get acquainted with the "real state of affairs."
Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
- especially for topwar.ru
Information