Multi-polar politics is possible in Central Asia; help the BRI!

Exercises in rhetoric

BRI again!?

An element that repeatedly rears its head in this blog's articles is the Chinese and Russian quasi-alliance, and more significantly the "BRI" (Bridge and Road Initiative) also known as "One Belt One Road". At it’s core is the attempt by China to invest in the creation of a trade network supported by transport (and communications) infrastructure from eastern Asia (China) to the Middle East, and onwards to Africa, with Europe distinctly in sight. This is the Mackinder "Heartland" theory of global dominance.

Not surprisingly the USA is very concerned about this, hence the "Pivot to Asia" announced by former president Obama in Australia's parliament a decade or so ago. Also not surprisingly, the USA's response to this "threat" has been haphazard and seems to use colour revolutions, humanitarian crisis allegations and military provocations. In retrospect, much of this seems destined for USA domestic consumption. There is a known method for dealing with these international challenges, its called diplomacy. However, the Mrs-Clinton-cheat-Sanders Intelligence-Trump-derangement-syndrome-Media complex seem to have backed themselves into a diplomatic corner.

For what does the "City on the Hill" stand? Lets call it the "European Declaration of Human (and political) Rights, with a US flavour elevating US business interests". The latter part is the truism (see Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, whose name I will drop at every opportunity), while the former is the aphorism.

Economic Inversion

Why has the Chinese economy surpassed the USA's? This is the critical geo-economic and geo-political question. While many factors are involved, there seem to be a few fairly obvious keys. The "centrally planned" economy of China is still supported by the profit motives of the USA oligarchs. I posit that the USA seeded its relinquishment of hegemony under the neo-liberal doctrines of the Reagan era, further facilitated during the Mr. Clinton era as the flight of industry from the USA to China continued for cheaper wages, better profits and increased "golden parachute" dividends; the"fuck the country, gimme my dollars" mantra.

The multi-faceted geo-economic strategy of the Chinese should be appreciated. Of course, they bought lots of gold. The Chinese love gold. They were mining it in the USA and Australia during their gold rushes in the mid 1850’s. They also bought USA treasuries and debt. The level to which they were allowed to do this implies, for me, a level of USA economic elite complicity in the rise of China. These instruments were the grease that allowed the continued manufacturing boom in China to increase their market influence in USA consumption. If you want a non-"US Fed" villain, look no further than the Walton family of Walmart fame.

The other key element is technological transfer by "fair means or foul".

Back again to bureaucracy; if China is beginning to challenge the USA economically, the sequence of events to counter this is known historically. Firstly, IMF/World Bank "economic hitman" (see sources) efforts. Rebuffed. Then it’s economic espionage. If not successful, then comes the "humanitarian" media pressure. This is almost always a precursor to direct military pressure. The Chinese saw this telegraphed left hook miles in advance and needed to invest not just in their technological/university/industrial capacity sectors, but their military. (I know this personally. I worked at a University as an IT lead; we were concerned about "spyware". But, the cooperation between our "western" University and those in China was an agreed policy by the Rectorate and that only comes from Government.)

China asks, who are the leading military technology producers, and with whom could we partnered? USA, Britain, France, Germany. Nope, nope, nope and nope. Russia? On our border, with some common history in communism, and both having been bludgeoned by the West. That'll do.

Why the fuck could the USA not have seen this position into which they were forcing China? I claim "too many cooks" and "blind cold-warriors". But miss it, and drive China towards it, they did. The bigger question is "to what degree was that purposeful?" This diabolical question is best addressed by my variant of “Occam’s Razor”; while collusion is rife, uncoordinated, self-interested stupidity is more common. I am still very open to both interpretations.

A Union of the Times

Vladimir Vladimirovich helped recover Russia from the nightmare which was caused by the looting, often at the direction of and profit for US firms during the '90's (of course, the odd Russian oligarch also did “penny on the dollar” purchases for Russian national assets). If you don't know about this, research it. Reduction in life expectancy, mass impoverishment, etc. etc.. If you think the 1930’s economic crisis in the USA was bad, look at Russia in the 1990’s.

A neighbour is growing as an economic power, and comes asking for "friendly neighbourliness". Being the shrewd player Putin is, it was all downplayed and investigations of intentions were made.

This is a key story of the first decade of the 21st century; quiet diplomacy.

The USA does Afghanistan and Iraq, but only Iraq matters at the time; global energy supply. Who's got the energy? Saudi (large, but declining), Iraq (major), other gulf states (significant), Russia (gas), Iran and Libya (small). Hidden from view is Venezuela's massive heavy oil reserves. The USA is running around like a bull in a China shop, while China and Russia are just trying to prevent disaster as they build.

Then the Libya debacle happens, just as the "friendly neighbourliness" is getting swinging. The Syria stupidity is just icing on the cake, and shows Russia's objectives; the political stability threat is "fostered religious extremism". With the support of a then almost equal economic power to the USA, China, they get invited in Syria and show the Chinese their diplomatic and military power. By 2017 it is all set in stone:

You do the economics, we'll do the military, and lets play partners on the diplomatic.

One Belt One Road

As Dr. Petro said in a recently recorded video to a Rutgers Masters of Arts Political Science lecture the USA has 300 years of history, the Chinese 4000 and therein lies the wisdom gulf.

The big Chinese strategy seems to have been to elevate themselves economically, gain sufficient military tech to defend themselves, and very importantly to secure their economic advantage. This is the counter to the “century of humiliation” (Opium Wars, Boxer Rebellion, Japanese invasion, Rape of Nanjing, and the battle of Mao and Kai-Shek). Is it "economic warfare"? No, but a bit. It does lay a firm foundation for independence from international influence and then cements it.

What Happen's to the 'Stans?

Pepe Escobar has just published an article on developments in the BRI and most importantly the USA's injection into it. He declares this a "monkey wrench" into the works. We shall see.

Let's rewind in time to the dissolution of the USSR at the end of 1991. The five 'stans (Khazakstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan) that were members of the USSR as "Soviet Socialist Republics" (SSRs) were born as "free nations" at that dissolution. What ensued was, of course, the maintenance of existing power structures, and not-so-surprisingly, the repression of alternative political forces. The 'stans are "backward" in western political speak, and get no coverage. Why? Really? Why? Answers to that question are a thesis in political science. Hint: little mineral wealth, industrial, military or economic power. The FCM term is "backwater" which I see as an intentional typo of “backward”.

What happens if you put a major investment into transport (and communications) infrastructure through these countries to connect them with the middle East (Western Asia) and greater Eurasia? Money.

To where does it flow?

Alliances with Despots

Heinz Alfred Kissinger is credited with his "shuttle diplomacy". The 1972 discussions with Saudi Arabia, the theocratic monarchy, resulted in the "bread lines" for oil as the price oil fuel quadrupled. To this day, the USA maintains an alliance with this theocratic monarchy which beheads people (women) for witchcraft and prevents women from receiving a driving license. "We stand for Human Rights!!!" If there was ever an in-your-face proof of what Smedley had to say, this is it. For the USA “human rights” is not a principle, but a weapon.

China and Russia are now in a bit of a quandary. They profess a few principles, key amongst them is international law, but also non-interference in national politics and territorial integrity. It is the middle point which will become murky in the 'stans. The China-Russia alliance, above all things, wants to create an economic system that enables them to continue their geo-political influence. This is the BRI. Nothing shall get in its way.

Controlling an Ally

Despots are great temporary allies; you get political and hopefully military stability, and with that, compliance from major industries. All good. It’s the "post temporary" part that is of concern.

Your author argues that alliances with despots are inherently unstable and thus temporary. It goes like this: Despotism leads to Nepotism. This facilitates the rise to influence of people who have no idea what they are talking about and cant hold a pair of chop-sticks. This could be dealt with, if under them there were people who understood history, cultural dynamics and economics but the longer the nepotism the less likely. Its a dead-end, temporary strategy.

The counter to this is documented history; the influential powers have despotic family members study at their leading universities to prevent their idiocy (and influence them). This is the second 'I' in MICIMATT.

The Future of the 'stans

How will Russia-China deal with the influx of money via trade coming to the central Asian republics? I claim that they want stable governance and intelligent people with which to deal. There is an inherent conflict in this.

Political repression does not achieve intelligent diplomats, it achieves idiots and ideologues.

If a desire for intelligent diplomats is a part of the China-Russia goal for BRI in the 'stans, should Western Democracies support this push for greater political freedom in these former Soviet Socialist Republics via enhancing a growing middle class? How will governments control to which universities the children of power are sent?

Here in the ‘stans is a classic conflict of political influence, ideological and economic ideals between both the “rising powers” and the “West”.

Watch this space.

Sources

"BRI vs New Quad for Afghanistan’s Coming Boom" Pepe Escobar

"Post Communist Transitions - A Crash Course through Central Asia", Dr Michael Rossi (Rutgers Uni)

"Reading Russia and Ukraine Right - A Conversation with Dr. Nicolai Petro" Rutgers

John Perkins, Confessions Of An Economic Hitman, Ian N (youtube channel), but C-SPAN.