On Closer Examination

In his May 16 Wall Street Journal column Thinking Global, Frederick Kempe observes that "Central Asia Emerges As Strategic Battleground."

Kempe writes that Central Asia has oil, and so has become the obect of desire for the three world powers. Yes, we are now in a tri-polar world with China, Russia and the US as the players.

Kempe describes the "realpolitik" going in in Central Asia. He reports that Dick Cheney visited Kazakhstan to shore up support for a trans-Caspian pipeline as a countermeasure to Russia's growing tendency to use access to its oil and gas resources as a negotiating chip. And also as a counterweight to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which includes Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan (but excludes the US). Apparently, China's game is to cooperate with Russia but win the "hearts and minds" of the other governments with red carpet treatment.

The "New Great Game" for the US, writes Kempe, is less about winning and more about not being marginalized by Russia and China. "Bush administration officials have decided the stakes are too high for Puritan values," writes Kempe. Which explains why the US is willing to depart from its "democratic missionary work" to deal with Kazakh leader Nursultan Nazarbayev. Notes Kempe, Nazarbayev suppresses opponents and appropriates resource wealth, but grows the economy by 9-10% annually.

So, according to Kempe, Washington believes we are in a tripolar world and Central Asia is a jewel to be plucked by the poles.

What is astonishing is the complete lack of a sense of the history of Central Asia. When the only means of trade between Europe and Asia was by land, Central Asia was the center of the world, where the trade routes met. Tashkent, Samarkand and Bukhara were cities which flowered under the constant influx of merchants and cultures. The region never fully recovered from invasion by the Mongols, but still retains a strong cultural identity.

Despite years of occupation by the Soviet empire, there are still over 160 languages spoken in Central Asia, most of them of Turkic origin. The southern borders of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have always been porous with Iran and Afghanistan. Soviet Russia was never able to stop nomadic peoples from crossing back and forth.

Why? Primarily because these central Asian countries are artificial. Just as Czechoslovakia was an artificially formed state combining ethnic groups which hated each other, the Central Asian republics were created by the Soviets and imposed on indigenous populations. Now, these "countries" can only be maintained by force, not by democracy. Because the people see more in common with Istanbul and Tehran than they do with Moscow, Beijing or Washington.

So, the three poles think they will divide Central Asia? What about the fourth pole? What about radical Islam? Kempe doesn't mention it, doesn't describe it as part of the new world order, but I'm betting the peoples of Central Asia are aware of it.

I'm sure Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan is aware of the proximity of Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. I'm sure China sees that Iraq is becoming more aligned with Iran than Washington, and that the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan.

So are we truly to believe that Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, which have a common histories with the peoples of Central Asia, will sit quietly by as China, Russia and the US claim ownership of Central Asian oil? Or should we suspect that radical Islam will target US, Russian and Chinese oil interests in a bid to gain control over the "realpolitik" oil prizes?

To me, the most realistic outcome of this "realpolitik" three pole game is that Russia, China and the US will pay to develop oil economies in countries which will then fall victim to uprisings fueled by radical Islamists.

How can it be that the Bush administration can continue to underestimate the power of radical Islam to thwart its attempts to grab oil around the globe? Like our "realpolitk" relationships with the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Muamar Qaddafi or the Saud family have not all gone horribly awry.

How can a critique of administration policy in Central Asia fail to even mention the history of the region and its cultural ties to countries which are fast becoming anti-Western Islamic regimes?

Even "realpolitik" imperialists have to take into account the ethnicity of their subjects.