The Economist Forgets Its Homework
I don’t even know what the Economist is trying to say here:
Unlike the leaders of Ukraine and the Baltic states, however, Central Asia’s presidents have trod carefully. For the most part, they have kept their thoughts on the war to themselves. The notable exception is Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan Nazarbayev. But even he has confined himself to vague public statements and avoided taking sides, though he sent humanitarian aid to South Ossetia.
What? That’s not true at all. As Noah Tucker pointed out in this very space, the ‘Stans and China were not “treading carefully” (whatever that means). But this news could have been hard to find: after all, obscure news source Yahoo reported:
The six in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) also “express their deep concern over the recent tensions surrounding the South Ossetia question and call for the sides to peacefully resolve existing problems through dialogue.”
Echoing language used in the West over the conflict, a portion of the statement also said the summit members supported the principle of “territorial integrity” of states…
China’s foreign ministry reiterated, however, its concern over Russia’s decision to recognise two breakaway Georgian provinces as independent states, and experts were split on how to interpret the Dushanbe statement…
Speaking before the statement was signed, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang told reporters in Beijing: “China expresses concern over the latest developments in the situation in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
“We are fully aware of the complicated history and reality of the issues of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and given our consistent position on such issues, we hope the relevant countries properly resolve the issues through dialogue and consultation.”
China, which is battling separatist claims on its own territory, called for “dialogue and consultation”.
The president of energy-rich Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, sounded a note more in favor of Moscow.
After the summit, Nazarbayev said he related “with understanding to all the measures taken by Russia” when he held a one-on-one meeting with Medvedev.
“I would very much like international opinion to move toward peace and understanding, without constant announcements about the Cold War,” he said.
That isn’t how the Economist put it. AT ALL. The two events don’t even assign the same players the same motives, though Yahoo does us the courtesy of using actual quotes from actual officials instead of asserting a viewpoint. But the Economist continues:
Central Asia’s leaders have long learned to live with Russia’s view of their countries’ role: as a useful buffer to volatile Afghanistan, and as important trading partners and energy suppliers. Equally, however, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, America and China have growing interests and investments in the region. This has helped check any overweening Russian dominance.
That is just ridiculously wrong. On so many levels. The rest of their analysis is of a similar bent, too, which makes me wonder if the Economist reporter was watching the same Russian sources Noah mentioned. Because it is just detached from reality.
Stumble it! |
Tags: SCO, Media.
Posted by Joshua Foust on September 4th, 2008
Permalink | Trackback | Comments: 8
Comments
Time: 9/5/2008, 6:03 am
“Central Asia’s leaders have long learned to live with Russia’s view of their countries’ role: as a useful buffer to volatile Afghanistan, and as important trading partners and energy suppliers. Equally, however, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, America and China have growing interests and investments in the region. This has helped check any overweening Russian dominance.”
How precisely is this ridiculously wrong and on what levels? I am at a loss to understand.
The Dushanbe declaration made a single reference to the South Ossetian conflict in one sentence that offered support for Russian peace-keeping in South Ossetia while also backing the peace agreement jointly drawn up by Paris and Moscow. There was no reference to incursion into non-disputed Georgian territory, a matter no Central Asian leader has touched upon explicitly, and no recognition of independence for South Ossetia or Abkhazia. That is what “treading carefully” means.
The AFP article you excerpted refers to China limiting itself to calling for “dialogue and consultation”, as opposed to endorsing or criticising Russian behaviour. That too is a good example of “treading carefully.”
Overall, the Economist article is a fairly inoffensive primer on Central Asia’s geopolitical quandary for the general reader.
Only on two points does it stray into choppy waters, though hardly in an excessively ridiculous fashion.
At one point, the reports writes: “Observers believe that, at the Dushanbe summit, President Kurmanbek Bakiyev will probably succumb to pressure to close the American base.”
I can’t think of anyone that thought closure of Bagram was ever on the cards for the Dushanbe meeting and that has prediction has indeed proved woefully far off the mark. An SCO summit is hardly the venue where such an issue would be raised in any event.
Slightly less controversially, claiming that Nazarbayev has stuck to making only “vague public statements” is hardly correct, as his references “to the long-suffering Ossetian people” attest. That said, it is more or less true that he has kept from taking sides, which is how he was able to suggest putting Kazakhstan forward as a mediator in multi-party negotiations over the Georgian conflict. Nazarbayev has also insisted that talks on Georgia would require the involvement of the European Union and the United States - an opinion that Moscow is loathe to share at present.
Time: 9/5/2008, 6:15 am
Peter, I really don’t know when, say, Kazakhstan considered itself a buffer against a “volatile Afghanistan,” or when any of these countries thought Russia was using them as such. I mean, that might be the case, but it’s way outside what I’ve read of them.
Similarly, if you look at what Russia expected of the SCO summit, it was actually rebuffed. It has found very few friends, even amongst its traditional ones, that support its activities in Georgia. I think that is significant, especially since it’s not too common to see China speaking up like this.
Time: 9/5/2008, 6:37 am
The reference to Central Asia being a buffer between Russia and Afghanistan is part of a list and is a clear reference to Tajikistan. It is probably a little bit of a loose description, but heavy Russian military presence in that country certainly indicates that is how Moscow views Tajikistan. I don’t think Dushanbe, in fact, has any qualms about it, since their own ability to properly defend their country against military incursions is beyond a joke. Only a few ago, driving along a road in southern Tajikistan I counted more than a dozen armoured personnel carriers and military trucks passing in the opposite direction. How many of them were Tajik? Not a single one, of course.
Essentially, I agree with you on the outcome of the SCO summit, and so does The Economist I believe. Russia was offered extremely tepid support for its peacekeeping operations; what sphere of actions those covered is anybody’s guess and depends on your opinion on the whole affair to begin with. What Nazarbayev and, to a lesser extent, Tajik President Emomali Rakhmon did, though, was to openly criticise Georgia’s leadership over its initial agression.
As for China, it spoke only to say nothing at all, which is par for the course.
Time: 9/5/2008, 6:40 am
Well, I say The Economist agrees on the outcome of the summit, but that’s hardly possible since the article seems to have been written before, or at least during, the event. But you get my point.
Time: 9/5/2008, 10:28 am
potato-potatah
Time: 9/5/2008, 11:01 am
There is one thing that really got me, it is how China used the russian involvement in the S.Ossetia conflict to gently seize leadership in SCO from Russia.
Look, none of the CA leaders were happy with what Russia has done with Georgia, but they had to show some loyalty to Russia for a lot of reasons, one of which is probably tremedous pressure from the russian side. I imagine that russians demanded from CA republics to show clearly whose side they take. At this moment China shows its discontent with any separatism and it gives the CA leaders a safe harbour. They comfortably took China’s position. Russians could not press on CA republics when China was behind them.
So, I would say, in this case, CA leaders did not take pro-Russian or pro-Georgian position, they took pro-Chinese position. And China - not Russia, nor USA - showed that it can be a leader and guarantor for those who fear separatism and radicalism. Russia now is a bully, USA can not provide protection.
It seems to me that now CA will tend to lean more and more towards China in such situations.
Time: 9/5/2008, 9:58 pm
The Economist doesn’t always do its homework when it comes to Central Asia.
Time: 9/7/2008, 9:41 pm
I actually agree with Peter. While the article wouldn’t survive a scholarly review, overall it is pretty accurate.
I thought it was interesting that, in general, the main news sources of SCO member and observer states ran stories which described support for Russia at the SCO. As opposed to reporting the half-success which it actually was (support for “peacekeeping”, no support for S.O. and Ab. independence), the western press’ hyped-up glorification of Russia’s “failure” (which, as mentioned, made it all the way to Yahoo!) looks almost a bit like pushy propaganda at this point.
Write a comment