[Kabar-indonesia] FT: Opposition to U.S. Inspires ‘Nato of the East’ [+Zoellick; The Australian]

[JoyoNews at aol.com]

also: Bloomberg: Old China hand leaves Bush team reeling [the resignation 
of  US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick] and The Australian: 
Partnerships in Asia the big Bush winners [For Washington insiders, the 
US-Australia alliance is one of the great successes of the Bush presidency's 
troubled foreign policy, writes Greg Sheridan]

Financial Times (UK)
June 22, 2006

Opposition to US Inspires ‘Nato of the East’

By Geoff Dyer and Richard McGregor

For the first five years of its existence, the Shanghai Co-operation 
Organisation 
was thought of as little more than a talking shop for central Asian leaders.

Yet since the annual summit in Shanghai last week of the six-nation group – 
its members are China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and 
Tajikistan – diplomats have been trying to decide if the organisation is now becoming 
an important political entity.

This is partly down to Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, the controversial Iranian 
president, who visited the Shanghai summit as an observer and talked of his desire 
for Iran to enter the SCO. His presence prompted speculation that the SCO could 
provide a diplomatic lifeline to Iran and hamper efforts to persuade Iran to 
abandon its uranium enrichment programme.

But as high oil prices have intensified the jostling for political power in 
central Asia, the questions raised by the SCO summit go much deeper. The group 
appears to underline China’s ever-expanding influence in the region and is 
taking a more confrontational attitude to the US. Critics in the US have tagged 
it with labels such as “Oriental Nato” and “Opec with nuclear weapons”.

“The SCO is emerging as a focus of global power which is competing with the 
US,” says Ariel Cohen, a Russia and Eurasia specialist at the Heritage 
Foundation, the conservative think-tank in the US.

“Its agenda, especially after Ahmadi-Nejad’s performance, is clear: to 
dictate to the US how things are done, and at what pace.”

The SCO has its roots in a group called the Shanghai Five set up in 1996 to 
analyse territorial disputes in central Asia following the collapse of the 
Soviet Union. It evolved into the SCO in 2001 with a focus on security and 
economic co-operation.

Diplomats say the SCO is beginning to establish an identity for itself, 
partly based on opposition to the US making greater inroads into the region.

Motivated by what regional leaders saw as US involvement in the wave of 
popular unrest in former Soviet republics in 2005, the group first began to flex 
its muscles last year when it called on the US to set a date for closing its 
military bases in central Asia. Uzbekistan later asked the US to leave, while 
Kyrgyzstan has threatened to evict the US from its last military base in the 
region unless it increases the rent it pays on aircraft landing and refuelling 
100-fold.

At the summit last week the six countries focused on Afghanistan, promising 
to combine forces to tackle the heroin trade and the deteriorating security 
position, in what some analysts said was a challenge to the US. Uzbekistan 
president Islam Karimov criticised the “low effectiveness” of the international 
coalition forces in Afghanistan and complained that they had not curbed drug 
smuggling.

“Terrorism and extremism are key factors in the region,” says Hu Jian, 
deputy director of the SCO Research Centre at the Shanghai Academy of Social 
Sciences (SASS). “And Afghanistan has been a cradle for terrorism and extremism 
since the US invasion.”

The SCO is also becoming an ambassador for the Chinese approach to 
international affairs, which involves a strict policy of non-interference in other 
countries and eschews comparisons of human rights situations. The summit’s final 
declaration included favoured Chinese formulations such as opposition to 
“exporting models of social development” and an emphasis on combating not just 
terrorism and extremism but also “separatism” – a term China usually uses to refer 
to pro-independence politicians in Taiwan but which is also directed at some 
members of Muslim minorities in western China. 

For all the bluster at the summit, Professor Hu at SASS insists the SCO is 
not opposed to the US – China favours “multiple layers of co-operation”, he 
says – while Mr Cohen points out that China is much less keen on stoking 
anti-Americanism than some other countries are, in part because of the strong trading 
links. 

Washington, he says, should respond to the SCO’s rise by strengthening ties 
with more friendly nations in the region, such as Kazakhstan.

Despite the surge of interest in the group, however, some analysts believe 
the influence of the SCO is being greatly overestimated. 

Kirill Nourzhanov, an expert on central Asia at the Australian National 
University, said the organisation had so far proved to be little more than a photo 
opportunity for high ranking leaders. It has only a very small secretariat 
with no real working bodies, “no common economic space” and very little military 
co-operation, he says. 

In Moscow, he adds, the SCO is considered a relatively unimportant channel 
for diplomacy in the region.

“They just get together now and again and make it known that they don’t like 
the US, and that’s about where it stops,” he says. “The image of a mighty 
and organically anti-western military alliance is misleading.”

-----------------------------------------

Bloomberg News
June 21, 2006

Old China hand leaves Bush team reeling

by Janine Zacharia 

The resignation of Robert Zoellick, the US Deputy Secretary of State, leaves 
a void in President George Bush's Asia policy team at a time when the US has 
made a priority of engaging China on issues ranging from the trade deficit to 
Iran.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice entrusted Mr Zoellick with management of 
the relationship with China. Such responsibility is unusual for a deputy, who 
traditionally backs up the secretary rather than designing policy.

"I don't see anybody else in this administration who can step into Zoellick's 
shoes, because there's no one besides Zoellick in this administration who 
understands China," said Jeffrey Bader, a former director of Asian affairs for 
the National Security Council.

Kurt Campbell, a former deputy assistant secretary of defence for Asia, said 
there "is notable anxiety about his leaving" in Beijing.

Besides his work on China, MrZoellick had also led US efforts to stop a wave 
of killings and destruction in Sudan's Darfur region that has left 2 million 
people refugees, with thousands forced to flee to neighbouring Chad. He 
hammered out a peace agreement between a warring rebel faction in Darfur and the 
government in Khartoum, opening the possibility for a United Nations force to 
enter.

No successor has been named to replace Mr Zoellick, who said he would leave 
the State Department early next month. He has taken a job as vice chairman of 
Goldman Sachs's international business, where he will advise the firm on global 
issues and chair its 25-member international advisory group. He worked there 
during the Clinton administration.

Among possible successors are Randall Tobias, who was appointed head of the 
US Agency for International Development in January; undersecretary of state 
Nicholas Burns, the current No3 official who has been Dr Rice's point man on 
negotiations with European nations to curb Iran's nuclear program, and Deputy 
Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt.

Mr Bush last week said that MrKimmitt and Dr Rice's aide, Philip Zelikow, 
would lead a diplomatic initiative to help build international support for Iraq.

At Goldman Mr Zoellick joins current vice-chairman Robert Hormats, an 
assistant US secretary of state from 1981 to 1982.

"He will be a terrific addition," Mr Hormats said. "In my view, he is one of 
the brightest and most capable people who has served in the US government in 
the last quarter-century."

Stuart Eizenstat, undersecretary of state for economic affairs in president 
Bill Clinton's administration, said last month that Mr Zoellick had "been 
perhaps the most effective deputy secretary of state in decades, taking on really 
tough issues."

Mr Zoellick informed the White House and Dr Rice earlier this year of his 
plans to leave the government, having served six consecutive years in 
back-to-back senior positions. He was US trade representative before joining the State 
Department.

In May, people familiar with the matter said Mr Zoellick told the White House 
he would leave if he was not tapped to succeed John Snow as Treasury 
Secretary. On May 30, Mr Bush named Goldman Sachs chief executive Henry Paulson to the 
job. Mr Zoellick denied being passed over had anything to do with the timing 
of his exit.

"There was never any sense of 'I must get this or I'm going to do that', " he 
said. "My process was independent of the search for a new Treasury chief."

Mr Zoellick said he decided to remain through the April visit of Chinese 
President Hu Jintao to Washington and then was compelled to stay by developments 
in the peace negotiations on Darfur. He flew to talks on Darfur in Nigeria and 
spent four days in almost round-the-clock negotiations to win agreement from 
the major rebel group to end the conflict.

"It is quite extraordinary that someone of Zoellick's seniority would be so 
closely engaged in an African issue over such a long period of time in such 
detail," said Alex de Waal, an adviser to the African Union peace mission in 
Darfur.

Mr Zoellick applied similar energy in pushing China to accept a bigger role 
in international issues as its trade with the US expands and its quest for 
energy extends into Africa and Latin America.

--------------------------------------------

The Australian
June 22, 2006

Opinion

Partnerships in Asia the big Bush winners

For Washington insiders, the US-Australia alliance is one of the great 
successes 
of the Bush presidency's troubled foreign policy, writes Greg Sheridan

RICH Armitage, the former US deputy secretary of state, lists four important 
accomplishments for US foreign policy under George W. Bush.

The first is the US-Australia alliance. It has grown immeasurably closer 
under Bush and John Howard. The Australian Prime Minister, Armitage says, got 
everything he wanted from the alliance and the Americans are certainly happy with 
what they got from it. 

And Howard is one of relatively few democratic political leaders who has not 
suffered at all politically from his association with Bush. 

"Howard knows his own mind and people admire that," Armitage says. "And he 
has an unerring sense of timing. He sits back and lets others make mistakes and 
then he snaps the trap shut." 

Armitage was personally responsible for the development of the Trilateral 
Security Dialogue between the US, Japan and Australia and regards it as a vitally 
important new piece of regional architecture. 

"For the US, it forces us to look at Asia seriously once a year," he says. 
"For Australia, it allows you to punch way above your weight because you have 
the full attention of the two biggest economies in the world." 

I had a long discussion with Armitage this week in his Washington office. He 
was the deputy secretary of state for the first four years of Bush's 
presidency. 

He then left government service because he would not stay in an 
administration that got rid of former secretary of state Colin Powell but kept Defence 
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. 

According to Washington rumour, Armitage was offered three separate positions 
in the second Bush administration. He could have become the first director of 
national intelligence, the newly created top position in the intelligence 
system. He could have become director of the CIA or head of the Department of 
Homeland Security. 

In all likelihood, should a Republican win the presidency in 2008, Armitage 
would again be a central player in US foreign policy. 

These days he is open in expressing his criticisms of US policy. He is gloomy 
about the situation in Iraq, as outlined in The Australian's news pages 
yesterday, though he is by no means defeatist. 

It's instructive that the other three developments Armitage regards as big 
achievements for Bush's foreign policy are all centred in Asia. 

When Armitage left Bush's team, Washington lost much of its Asian expertise. 
However, his successor, Bob Zoellick, also had substantial Asian experience 
and took the running on US-China policy. With Zoellick now also announcing his 
departure this week, the administration is even more bereft of Asia hands. 

But back to the achievement list. 

Achievement No.2 is the US relationship with Japan. Japan's Prime Minister, 
Junichiro Koizumi, as with Howard, prospered politically after fully backing 
Bush in Iraq and in the war on terror generally. Tokyo and Washington have 
re-defined their alliance, making it both more reciprocal and global. 

Success No.3 is the relationship with China. Many analysts in the early days 
of the Bush administration saw likely conflict between Washington and Beijing. 

Instead, tensions have been defused, co-operation in numerous fields pursued, 
trade expanded and a general atmosphere of calm maintained, although the US 
mood towards China may be souring. 

And achievement No.4 is the new relationship with India. This culminated in a 
revolutionary nuclear deal earlier this year in which the US undertakes to 
provide India with nuclear technology and fuel, while India puts most of its 
nuclear energy program under international supervision. Because India would keep 
its nuclear weapons, this deal would require fundamental revision of the 
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

As a result, it's a highly contentious deal but Armitage confidently predicts 
it will be passed by Congress. 

This is a view I hear all over Washington. The new US-India strategic 
engagement may be one of the most important developments of our time. Serious 
Washington analysts believe the India relationship could be the US's most important 
within five years. 

Armitage supported military intervention in Iraq but is now outspoken about 
how he and Powell wanted it done very differently, including the use of a far 
larger number of troops. 

He believes the US army is altogether too small and that Rumsfeld's obsession 
with a technological transformation of the military has led to a dangerous 
imbalance in US force structure. 

"One of the key tenets of warfare has not changed," he says. "Only a soldier 
with a gun can hold ground, only a soldier with a bayonet can bend an enemy to 
your will." 

There are situations, Armitage says, that you cannot control from 5000m or 
from offshore. You need soldiers on the ground. 

Armitage is also outspoken about the things he believes damage America's 
standing. He said in a recent interview when asked about Abu Ghraib and 
Guantanamo: "I think they're terrible. I think they're a blot on our national character. 
I'd close Guantanamo tomorrow; Abu Ghraib was another blot on our character. 
It says a terrible thing about us and I'm ashamed of it. 

"Are we harmed indelibly and for all time by it? No, we're not. But we ought 
to correct these aberrations that don't speak or don't prop up our national 
values." 

Armitage's tough-minded honesty is part of the US's resilience. David Brooks 
argued in The New York Times this week that the US still has a good chance in 
Iraq because of four factors - US troop morale is high, Iraqi forces are 
increasingly capable, the Iraqi Government has finally come together and the Iraqi 
people are not irreparably divided. 

America's great strength is its problem-solving culture. A lot of the best 
minds are hard at work on the problems of Iraq.

------------------------------------------
Joyo Indonesia News Service
------------------------------------------