No country has risen to prominence with greater rapidity and less fanfare in recent years than Turkmenistan. Once Central Asia’s most isolated backwater, the former Soviet satellite, host to enormous oil and gas riches and perhaps the region’s most critical strategic perch, has redefined itself as the centerpiece of a new regional order, having become the most critical prize in a new “great game.”
The original article is here. Mike Miller, an attorney in New York wrote this article, and while I am sure he is a very intelligent man, I do not agree with his article. Nor can I imagine the set of circumstances under which the above statement approaches reality. I understand that Turkmenistan has a lot of natural gas. I have also heard that Ashgabat is looking to gain more control over how its gas is treated once it leaves the sovereign territory of Turkmenistan.
Some international experts have expressed doubt that Turkmenistan can meet all its supply obligations, but the government insists there is enough gas.
And if the government insists… well, caveat emptor. And this is just for fun, but did you know that the Turkmenbashi mosque is the largest in Central Asia? Well, if you didn’t, that’s ok – it’s about to get passed up. But not by Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan, oh no – but by Tajikistan. Again, I’ll believe it when I see it on the news. This reminds me of the international struggle to build the world’s tallest flagpole.
To get back to the article above, I have to say it reminds me of other articles I’ve read by Political “scientists” political analysts attempting to predict the unpredictable, i.e. the minds of absolutely authoritarian autocrats and kleptocrats. Consider the following paragraph:
Shortly after Niyazov’s death in December 2006, a 52-year-old former dentist named Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov ascended to the leadership, leveraging both political and tribal allegiances — like Niyazov he is a member of the Tekke tribe — to consolidate power and orchestrate, in true Soviet fashion, an “election” to the presidency. Despite his obscure background, Mr. Berdymukhamedov’s rise was generally welcomed by the populace, who were intrigued by his Gorbachev-like promises of greater openness and reform in the health, education, agriculture and information sectors.
Berdymukhamedov did not meteorically rise to power after Niyazov’s death. He had been there all along, first as the Minister of Health, then as Deputy Prime Minister. I agree that it is comical that a dentist become president, but I don’t understand why one would mention it in this context without mentioning his previous role as Minister of Health from 1997 until his later promotion. Also, mentioning his tribal affiliation serves only to confuse the reader with a sense that “clan politics” is unlike the “party politics” of the US. I would argue that it is more similar than different, especially considering that membership in a tribe /clan is rarely based on genealogical lineages. There is a similar problem with Kazakhstan analysts exaggerating the role of horde (жүз) and/or tribe (ру) affiliation. And what Gorbachev like actions did Berdymukhamedov ever give, versus those of Niyazov? The promises are not what made Gorbachev Gorbachev – it was the action [no matter the consequences].
I think it’s important to remember that the months after Niyazov’s death were confusing, and that while no one knew who would be the new “king,” Berdymukhamedov was up front from the beginning. Consider this old article, where a Russian “analyst” completely misses the boat and claims the military leader is the only real choice for a successor. Bold move for someone studying a neutral country with a pitiful military. I think discretion would have been the better part of valor.
Arkady Dubnov, a Central Asia expert with the Russian newspaper Vremya Novostei, said a fierce internal power struggle was under way. Years of repression and one-man rule, he said, have left the country without alternative political leaders.
The interim president, Dubnov said, is a temporary figure: the real potential heir is the chief of Niyazov’s presidential guard, Akmurad Redzhepov.
Analysts said powerful security officials stood behind Berdymukhamedov, a deputy prime minister, who is likely only an interim leader. His rise to power was swift and surprising.
Under the constitution, Ovezgeldy Atayev, a parliament speaker, was next in line for the presidency. But shortly after Niyazov’s death was announced, Atayev was charged with abuse of power and human rights violations.
Berdymukhamedov signed an order dismissing Atayev for “committing a deed incompatible with the high position entrusted him.”
Turkmenistan’s prosecutor general accused Atayev in a statement of harassing and humiliating his own daughter-in-law and driving her to attempt suicide.
Berdymukhamedov said the People’s Council, a 2,000-member legislature chosen by Niyazov, will meet Tuesday to pick the candidates and set a date for presidential elections. But a decree the acting president signed suggested any elections may not be competitive.
{ 5 comments }
Dushanbe’s may be bigger, but is it going to have the quote “The Koran is God’s book, the Ruhnama is the holy book” on it (in Turkmen, no less)? I think not.
The architecture of the Dushanbe mosque is interesting, though. The Turkmenbashi mosque is designed to look just like the palace, the university, and really everything else in downtown Ashgabat…even though the mosque IN downtown Ashgabat is the decidedly Ottoman Ertugrul Gazi Mosque. This one in Dushanbe looks much more like the Registan complex than anything else. I wonder if that’s to hearken back to Timur’s Golden Age or if it is much more explicitly Uzbek than that. Even if it’s funded by Qataris.
What’s up with uncalled for dig against political scientists. If you are going to make this claim, you need to reference whom you are talking about. The thing is very few political scientists engage in anything resembling prediction: most are concerned only with explaining events post facto. In fact, maybe too much so. The big exception that you may be referencing, Bueno de Mesquita, is hardly mainstream and even he separates his empirical academic work from his predictions, most of which are made through contracting work with organizations such as the CIA. Maybe I am little sensitive about this now, but your use of quotes around “science” directly references Senator Coburn’s amendment to cut NSF funding for Political Science (currently under discussion in the Senate).
@brent:My apologies – Political Scientists are not bad people. I’ve been disillusioned with political science in the past, but my disillusionment is not proof for anyone. I’ve had some experience with Western-focused political scientists applying graphs, patterns, and equations to Central Asian situations and really misunderstanding the situation, in a Robert Kaplanesque way [i.e. comically inaccurate, but with enough buzz words to convince some people in power]. I’m aware of Senator Coburn’s amendment, but I don’t know enough about the subject to agree or disagree. I would argue that Political Science and the social sciences are making a mistake to ask for any inclusion or comparison with the hard sciences: Biology, Botany, Meteorology, Parasitology, etc. It would be much safer to sit tight with philosophy and history in the humanities.
Needless to say perhaps, but I strongly disagree. Finding generalizable patterns of social life is a worthwhile and even achievable goal. I don’t want to get too off topic here, so I will refrain from launching a defense of scientific inquiry. But I should add that although I have academic disagreements with some other political scientists (and other social scientists) working on Central Asia, I would hardly compare their work to Robert Kaplan’s. If you have some particularly sloppy political scientists in mind, why not call them out explicitly? After all, it is through the exchange of criticism that the quality of work improves.
@brent: I agree with you now that my swipe at PS was uncalled for. After reading two hours of crap on the internet re: the Coburn amendment, I realize how little I know about the state of Political Science in the US and how little I care. Just call me a historian with a love of contemporary history.
Comments on this entry are closed.