Joshua Kucera over at the Bug Pit wrote about Afghanistan’s rail link to Uzbekistan earlier this weekend. There are pictures of the ribbon-cutting ceremony here. There are a number of players involved and watching from the sidelines, thanks to Uzbekistan’s and the Asian Development Bank’s involvement. NATO and ISAF are hopeful, naturally, for another route into Afghanistan. No one in their right mind would ask for it, but my opinion is that this is a project that might have been started earlier, especially if all the Northern Alliance propaganda is true. Maps that like to pinpoint the pro-Taliban provinces usually mention that the north is stable, anti-Taliban, and ready for development… though there is evidence on both sides of that argument. Then consider just how pro-NATO, pro-Afghanistan Uzbekistan is going to be, which is basically just as far as the profit margin will stretch.
Reuters reports the story with reference to the somewhat more complete link between Iran and Afghanistan. Here again one finds the trope of high-risk, easy-target, why-bother mentality:
“It can and will make a big difference. We can get fuel and other equipment from the north much easier into the area,” said a NATO spokesman, German Lieutenant-Colonel Goetz Hasske.
But with insurgents moving out of their traditional strongholds in the south and the east of the country in recent months and launching increasing attacks in the north, the railroad may provide an “easy target”, said Hasske.
“Whether its the Pakistan border or a 75 kilometre railway, it’s not easy to protect. You cannot protect it 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week,” he said.
Some are more optimistic than others, of course. Indeed, building a railroad in a war zone is difficult – perhaps that’s why they’re building it in the more secure areas? For Iran’s part, their rail link is still a ways from the Afghan border. Uzbekistan is merely connecting Termez with Mazar-i-Sharif. These are traditional hotbeds of mass destruction and safely inside the cultural influence. Herat is about as Persian/Iranian as Afghanistan gets, while Mazar-i-Sharif and its region remains predominantly Uzbek, Tajik, Turkmen, and Kyrgyz. If the Taliban is a pseudo-nationalist movement (not my own argument), these non-Pashtun areas might be safer bets for development and infrastructure building, no?
You can learn more about the Iran-to-Herat railway here. Or follow it yourself via Google Maps and satellite photography here. [Very cool - thanks to Railways of Afghanistan]
Just to muck things up, allow me to remind you that Iran and Uzbekistan use different rail gauges. If/when China gets in on the railway building experiment, however, they will be able to connect directly to Herat, as China and Iran (I believe) use the same rail gauge. And what of Turkmenistan’s connection with Afghanistan – will anything come of that? Mixing railways and Afghanistan, though, is sure to bring out the Great Game in all of us. Sigh.
{ 39 comments }
Just a small point. Being pro-NATO and pro-Afghanistan are two different things. Uzbekistan and Iran are interested in peace in their own neighborhood (through economic development), so there won’t be any excuse for the presence of US or NATO forces in the area.
Another goal that Uzbekistan has in mind is access to a sea port either in Iran or Pakistan. Building an Afghan national rail network connected west and south will make that possible.
Another small point: the article you linked to does not really say whether the Chinese plan to build their railway directly to China, or to anywhere else. I.e. maybe they want just a connection to some Pakistani port. Or a connection to Kazakhstan and then on to China. So what gauge is used inside the PRC might be not so important.
True – I considered that a possibility, but I’m assuming the worst – that even if the Chinese owned rail never enters the PRC, it will still use Chinese gauge. Perhaps you are right – they might merely connect the mines to the sea.
that’s very hopeful event for both Afghanistan and entire region. This if successfully put in work will surely speed up reconstruction efforts of donors in short run, and serve trade interests of countries like Uzbekistan in long run. Considering Pakistan, Iran, India are already becoming largest consumption markets. These will expand in future with population and economic growth in these countries – there will be more business opportunities. That’s a fine opportunity for Central Asia to revive the Great Silk Road.
Metin,
Do you think Uzbekistan will be a difficult trade partner with Afghanistan? It has been a difficult trade partner with all of its neighbors.
Metin,
Uzbekistan is the center of Central Asia. In consequence, nothing region-wide can happen without Tashkent’s positive involvement. Why does Tashkent use this leverage only to destroy region-wide economic ties? And never to build such ties? Can you comment on that. Thank you.
you seem to push the idea of Uzbekistan being a destructive force in the region. It might well become the one, if run the way it was done in Kyrgyzstan or Kyrgyzstan. So far it has been more on constructive side – at least in contributing to reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.
Michael, I’m a friend of KTR’s. The guy is depressed. He thinks you are denying him his First Amendment right. I’ll level with you. KTR can be an airhead. I also think he is sincere when he says he took your earlier criticism to heart. His comments have improved. They are more on topic now. Sure, there is room for improvement. So, give him a chance. Just me and my 2 cents.
I don’t delete comments unless they are spam. I close threads as a last resort, and I probably won’t do that much more in the future. Perhaps we should just open a forum, eh? If the comment ‘disappeared’ then it was someone else, or maybe your IP clogged at the last moment. If Josh or Nathan deleted it, that’s their prerogative.
What I don’t understand is what KTR’s relationship is to the innocuous company he links to “KTRassociates.” And the internet is an anonymous place – someone that names themselves “Just a mutual friend” can easily be not a friend at all, or even KTR himself supporting his own paranoia. Not that is matters to me, since the comment is moot – I don’t delete comments. I think the most I’ve done is remove vowels a week afterward from posts that try to use all 5000 characters allotted to say nothing anyone visiting the blog would want to read.
Michael, first of, thank you for you time. I’ve checked with our mutual friend. He regrets the typo. Darn, like I said, KTR can be an airhead. Certainly, his email has nothing to do with the innocuous KTR Associates. He mistyped it. His apologies to the venerable corporation. By the way, there is no anonymity here. KTR is a world famous acronym. Just like JFK or FDR. It stands for Klingon Televised Rehearsals™. I’ll ask him to consider getting a different domain just to avoid further confusion.
Nathan and Joshua, the site belongs to you. You have a full right to block anyone. Especially, potential airheads. A small request. Please inform us whether KTR is permanently banned. He says two of his comments never made it. I’ll level with you. He’s been drinking heavily since yesterday and so he could be wrong.
Everyone else: I have an open letter from our mutual friend: “KTR regrets if his comments have been too space or time consuming. Pending Nathan and Joshua’s kind permission and august approval, he commits to keeping his comments to 3-4 sentences in length. To clear any apprehension, he is not talking Tolstovian-length sentences. To be fully clear, his comments shall remain ideologically pure. i.e., their goal shall remain support for the minority voices on this blog. Thank you.”
@Metin, my friend, sorry about the delay. My earlier comment disappeared into the cyberspace. I shall try again.
You are absolutely right. It’s great that Uzbekistan will extend its famous free-trade practices to the hapless Afghans. They must be excited. And overwhelmed. No doubt, they’ve heard of trade disputes between Uzbekistan and all of its neighbors. The Uzbek government ought to airdrop free copies of Pravda Vostoka all over Afghanistan. It’ll make sure the Afghans have the correct understanding of those trade disputes.
Back in Soviet times, I have heard some Turkmen guys arrogantly saying that Termez was the only reason why Uzbekistan had a status of Soviet Republic, not Autonomous Republic. One of the criteria had been, that for a national republic to become Soviet, it had to have borders with a foreign country. That is why, for instance, Tatars, despite being quite numeric and very culturally distinct, had the status of only Autonomous Republic within Russian Federation. Termez was a narrow place Uzbekistan bordered with Afghanistan, and, thus, was Soviet.
Uzbekistan is no more in the Soviet Union, but still politically dependent on its border with Afghanistan. Afghanistan simply put Uzbekistan on the map. Afghanistan gives Karimov ground to call his policy independent, especially since the NATO invasion. Now, Karimov can play his “military base” and “roads to Afghanistan” cards to get attention from the US and its allies. Otherwise, let’s be honest, neighboring with Afghanistan is more of headache than of benefit.
Uzbekistan is very ambitious about its leadership in Central Asia, mostly because of the role its cities played in the past (although Tajiks will probably claim those cities to themselves). However, this leadership is restrained by its geographical location. In the landlocked Central Asia, Uzbekistan is the “most landlocked”. Simply because it is surrounded by “brotherly” -stans. It has no land or waterway access to any bigger players, such as Russia, China, or Iran (all other -stans do have access to at least one of those, and Kazakhstan to all). Its almost impossible to claim a leadership role, when you are dependent on your neighbors because of pipelines, roads, communication lines, and etc. As a kid, whom nobody wants to accept as a leader, Uzbekistan plays bully. Karimov now can show his muscles cutting Tajikistan’s railroad and Kirghistan’s gas supply, but it won’t last forever, as these countries exploit their connections with China more.
All landlocked countries wish to lift the curse of their geographic location. Nazarbayev, for instance, tries to push the project of the Black – Caspian seas channel. For Karimov something like that would be very hard.
So, Uzbekistan has to play the Afghanistan card. (Turkmenistan is not so interested, because it neighbors with Iran by land, and with other Caspian countries through the sea.) I do not think that many people can believe that Afghanistan’s economic and political situation will improve significantly any time soon, though.
Excellent comment – you make a lot of good points. I’d heard that “theory” about Uzbekistan’s Republic status before – it makes very real sense, and not only because of the seeming incongruous lack of any meaningful Tatar cultural/economic/religious autonomy inside Russia.
It is not actually just a theory. As far as I remember, we have studied it in school in history/ social sciences and geography.
Yes, the standard and public explanation of “real” republic vs “autonomous” was the external borders.
A gastronomic summary of Oldschoolboys’s comment. In the past, Central Asia was a vatrushka*. In the future it will be a doughnut.
*vatrushka – A Russian cheesecake. Its shape is similar to a dougnut, except there is cottage cheese and jam in the center.
Kinda grim future.
Geographical location of Uzbekistan is not only a curse, its location is advantage as well. From economics perspective it makes more sense to invest in a country with the largest consumer market and export from there to the rest of the region.
Metin,
Some say Uzbekistan is not exactly “the largest consumer market” acknowledging the neighbors’ population. Iran – 71 million, Afghanistan – 29 million, Pakistan – 166 million, China – 1.3 billion. Can you comment on that?
Can you also clarify this phrase:”export from there to the rest of the region.” Can you explain who will manufacture and export. Can you also comment on the fact that foreign companies have left Uzbekistan long time ago. Can you also comment on the possibility that Chinese goods will eliminate Uzbekistan’s own companies. Thank you.
I was referring to landlocked Central Asian countries when wrote about biggest the consumer market. Over 50% of regions population inhabits in Uzbekistan – that says enough.
As for manufacturing – best example is GM Uzbekistan. Just wonder which foreign companies left Uzbekistan recently. What we hear/read is Chinese, Russians, South Koreans, Malaysians have been increasing their investments here.
Metin,
Central Asia cannot be looked upon as being isolated from the world around it. The economies are becoming globalized. You know that. In consequence, “Uzbekistan is the largest market” is irrelevant. Chinese goods dominate all markets around Uzbekistan. They will dominate markets inside Uzbekistan. Can you comment on that?
All foreign companies that were making anything have left Uzbekistan. The CEO of Kabool Textiles said the bribes were too much. You are right there Chinese, Russians, etc are investing. They are investing in energy and natural resources. In consequence, they will not be exporting anything. Do you think GM UZ will beat Chinese cars? You can already buy Chinese cars in Kazakhstan today. Can you comment on that. Thank you.
Phoenix,
GM cars made in Uzbekistan are quite popular in Kazakhstan, more popular than Chinese. Have no idea about Kabul textiles, but Chinese, Koreans, Turkish are increasing their presence in textile sector here.
You acknowledge the growth in investments, though claim it won’t create any exports – that’s wrong. Energy is mainly exported, so investments in the sector create exports. Besides, investments are being made not only in extracting natural resources, but in their processing as well. Things are not as gloomy as you suggest.
It is a good point, but there is the Custom Union now of Russia and Kazakhstan with future joining of Belarus. It is about 170 million market. One of the consequences will be closing borders and imposing higher tariffs for imports from other countries, including Uzbekistan. It might seriously impact Uzbekistan’s auto-manufacturers, as both Russia and Kazakhstan will protect their auto-producers, which include such names as Toyota and GM as well. It is expected that the new CU will attract more foreign investments with the expansion of the consumer market and protective measures being established. I have also heard about potential entry of Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, but it will probably not happen very soon.
CU won’t affect the rest of CIS countries as there is free trade agreement among the CIS countries. CU is likely instead to create more opportunities for Uzbekistan, as CU countries will raise customs on third countries like China.
There would be no point of creating CU just to duplicate any free trade agreement. CU is to protect only the countries within and it will affect trade with any other countries, including CIS. Plus, I did not observe any free trade among CIS countries. As far as I know, all tariffs or barriers between any two Former Soviet Union Countries were based on bilateral agreements only.
Old Schoolboy,
free trade works among CIS, for products produces in their countries. That’s why GM-Uzbek cars are sold on mass in Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine etc. without customs duties.
CU will create common customs against third countries, with exception to those with bilateral free trade agreements. CU won’t affect exports from CIS countries. If you doubt about this – consult an expert.
Oldschoolboy,
Great post! I wonder if you know this. Could Kyrgyzstan buy its gas from Kazakhstan? Does Kazakhstan produce enough gas and are there necessary pipelines already? Would it be too expensive to built them?
Phoenix,
I do not know much about gas pipelines. As far as I know both south of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are supplied with Uzbek gas. The Kazakh gas fields are too far in the west and are exported mainly to/through Russia. There was a project about 15 years ago to exploit Kazakhstan’s own gas reserves in the south, but it is probably not economically feasible, since there is an easy access to Uzbek and now to Turkmen gas as the pipeline from Turkmenistan to China is built through Kazakhstan.
Oldschoolboy,
Thank you. I wonder if anyone here knows this. Is Kazakhstan allowed to take some gas out of the Turkmenistan-China pipeline? Or does it get only transit fees? Thank you.
Michael might know more about it, if he is still in Kazakhstan. Also I think that anyone can take gas from a pipeline going through his/her territory, as long as they pay:). The producer shouldn’t mind, the more they can sell the better.
Oldschoolboy,
That means Kazakhstan can take Turkmen gas and sell it to Kyrgyzstan. That would end Uzbekistan’s monopoly there.
… pipeline from Turkmenistan to China is built through Kazakhstan.
it still needs to go through Uzbekistan. Oldschoolboy, Pheonix, sorry, but Uzbekistan is still there.
Besides, even if your wishful thinking is taken for granted, it is very doubtful that the Kyrgyz will get the same subsidized gas price as they do from Uzbekistan. Kazakhstan is less dependent on Kyrgyz water, so Kyrgyz have little cards to play in price negotiations.
China and Iran do indeed use the same railway gauge – 4′ 8.5″ (known as “standard gauge”, and also found in Turkey, the middle east and most of Europe). The former USSR is all 5′ gauge, while India and Pakistan are 5′ 6″ gauge. This all adds up to a bit of a problem for easily connecting up any future Afghan rail network!
My understanding is that building a railway directly from China into Afghanistan – while probably not impossible for people who’ve already got a railway to Lhasa – would be very challenging, and so the proposals are to go via Tajikistan, or south through Pakistan to the sea instead (Afghanistan – Karachi links have been proposed for 100+ years).
Separately, there are also current plans for a standard gauge line from China right across Kazakhstan, which could have interesting political and strategic implications for Russia as it would compete with the Trans-Siberian route(s), which have a break of gauge at the Chinese borders.
I would be very interested to know the current status of the Iran – Herat railway – does anyone know for sure whether it is really being built on the Afghan side of the border?
Thanks again! I had never seen your blog before researching this story – it’s great how big the Internet is so that after years of reading on a topic (Afghanistan, Central Asia, etc.) there are still literally hundreds (thousands?) of blogs, journals, and other internet-focused materials out there for a person to find.
This is the first I’ve heard of a standard gauge connection from China through Kazakhstan – to where will it go? I’ll look it up, but any info you can share would be great!
Andrew,
Very informative comment. A minor note. China is building a railway into Afghanistan. Part of their plan to develop the Aynak copper deposit.
@pheonix: Is China “building”, or is it at this stage still “planing to build” to Aynak? If they are building, any idea which route they have chosen?
Something is supposedly happening towards developing a Tajikistan – Shirkhan Bandar railway, but I’ve not yet looked into exactly what or who is behind it.
@Michael: In February the Director of Transport at Economic Cooperation Organisation said details of a Kazakh line would be announced this year. There was a previous plan in 2004, but it seems to have fizzled out.
As an aside, are any Afghanistan experts able to read the writing on the side of a coach on the (now defunct) railway in Kabul?
My Persian I teacher will be proud of me (maybe if I didn’t screw up) when I tell you I think it says “Darulaman – Kabul” – but you could have guessed that, yeah? I’m not 100% sure on the Darulaman (flowery script must not be covered until Persian II), but it definitely says Kabul for the 2nd destination.
Thanks – that would indeed make rather a lot of sense!
Someone who visited the locos in the museum some years ago found some writing scrawled on one which was identified as being along the lines of “[name] woz ‘ere”…
Andrew,
You are right. Thank you for pointing that out. China is “planning”. The Aynak investment decision is strategic. The Chinese government usually gets such things done. It has money. It puts low value on workers’ lives or health. And it has no worries about elections.
Comments on this entry are closed.