Russia does not desert its friends in trouble. In mid-December, the 201st Military Base in Tajikistan was inspected to assess its combat readiness. Lieutenant General Alexander Lapin, the Commander of the Central Military District appointed in late November, oversaw the gratuitous transfer of weapons and equipment to Tajik military. He said it was the time for Russia and Tajikistan to join forces against the incumbent menace.

The Tajik army received three T-72B1 tanks, nine armored vehicles (BTR-80, BTR-70 and BMP-2), three D-30 howitzers, three 23М1 anti-aircraft guns, several Mi-24 and Mi-8 helicopters, large quantities of small arms and auxiliary equipment. In 2017, Moscow provided Dushanbe with a gratis military aid package valued at over $122 million – a sum comparable with the annual defense budget of Tajikistan. Roughly a thousand Tajik military go through training at the 201st base. 560 Tajik cadets receive training in Russian military schools. The training is also provided gratuitously.

The Russian-Tajik military cooperation illustrates the effectiveness and viability of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). In future, Russia will contribute to increasing combat capability of Tajik forces deployed at the border with Afghanistan. If Tajikistan is attacked, a joint operation of CSTO Collective Rapid Reaction Forces (CRRF) will be a possibility as confirmed by Combat Brotherhood 2017 exercise held last month. The CSTO has become a key instrument for countering regional challenges. The situation in Afghanistan is critical enough to justify urgent steps taken to enhance the capability to respond. The time is not wasted as Russia and its Central Asian prepare to fend the threat off.

Unlike NATO, Russia has no forces on Afghan territory but its clout is growing. The US efforts to bring peace to the country have failed to make the Afghan government seek help from Russia.

According to Zamir Kabulov, Russian Special Presidential Envoy for Afghanistan and Foreign Ministry's Director of the Second Asian Department, peace talks between Kabul and Taliban are possible. During the meeting of the International Contact Group for Afghanistan in Oslo, which took place earlier in December, Afghan Deputy Foreign Minister Hekmat Khalil Karzai announced Kabul's plans to work out a roadmap for peace settlement with the Taliban. Only six months ago the Afghan government ruled out any talks with the group. Afghan National Security Adviser Mohammad Hanif Atmar has asked Russia to act as a mediator and persuade the Taliban to take a seat at the round table. On Dec.6, an Afghan government-mandated peace council urged the Taliban to open an office in Kabul and take part in peace talks to end the country’s 16-year war. The council wouldn’t set any pre-conditions for negotiations and will let the insurgent group choose its own preferred methods for paving the way to negotiations. So far, the Taliban has flatly refused to negotiate with NATO but it never said it would not accept Moscow as a mediator.

Russia believes that all parties, except the extremist Islamic State group, can take part in peace efforts. Moscow is ready for cooperation with Washington on Afghanistan and maintains regular contacts with US Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia Alice Wells. Russian President Putin said during the latest 'Direct Line' annual call-in session on Dec. 14 that the cooperation on Afghanistan is the area where Russia could join efforts with the United States and jointly seek stabilization in Afghanistan.

If Russia succeeds in its role as a mediator, it would be a giant step forward to end the 16-year old war that neither the UN, nor the West, could put an end to. Organizing peace talks to include all parties involved in a conflict requires consummate diplomatic skills. It’s a tall order, but it’s worth trying.

Russia, Iran and Turkey announced on. December 22 that a fourth track of peace talks will open in in Russia's Black Sea resort of Sochi in January 2018. The UN and the Syrian opposition have acknowledged the new peace push. The parties agreed to hold the so-called Congress for National Dialogue in Sochi on January 29-30. The process envisages "the participation of all segments of the Syrian society." There is a real chance that 2018 will become the year of diplomatic breakthrough on Syria and Afghanistan. Russia diplomacy based on common sense, the logic of peace, and rejection of power politics appears to bear fruit and do what nobody else could. A light at the end of the tunnel is beginning to appear as Moscow intensifies its diplomatic efforts.

Formally the Almaty Central laboratory is to provide for the safety of especially dangerous pathogens left as remnants of Soviet biological program. It is to study the ways to provide protection against them, as well as to create jobs for former military experts on biological warfare. There are some signs confirming the fact that the laboratory may be used for military research conducted by the USA. The program is overseen by Richard Lugar, the Senator who is known to have close ties to military establishment. He had dealt with dismantling former Soviet nuclear facilities in Kazakhstan and other states of CIS switching later to tackling the issue of biological weapons, in particular in Ukraine and Georgia (the latter had no biological weapons in the times of the Soviet Union, but the laboratory named after Richard Lugar has been built there in our days)… 

The practice of using such facilities in other countries shows they operate outside of national control, the secrecy is tight and quite often the laboratories are managed by former military or special services officials (former head of Georgian foreign intelligence branch Anna Zhvania is assigned to head the laboratory in Alekseevka near Tbilisi). Here are many foreigners among the personnel, including those who enjoy diplomatic immunity; the local health authorities have no direct access to the facilities. 

The cost of Almaty laboratory is $108 million exceeding by far the standard expenditure for the objects of this type, it makes one believe that the dual purpose equipment is installed there. The emergence of costly closed military facilities on the territory of the Collective Security Treaty Organization evokes questions, to say the least. On July 19 the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed serious concern over the biological activities of US Department of Defense in the vicinity of Russian border. According to Russian experts, the chain of facilities poses a threat for Russia and allows the United States to carry out a number of unfriendly missions at once. 

First, it makes possible to conduct biological research (including field tests) outside the national territory without facing a problem of protests staged by Americans. 

Second, it allows getting around the international agreements, including the 1972 biological convention. Let me remember the fact that Americans consistently shy away from working out verification mechanisms for checking the convention compliance (for instance, they refuse to join the protocol to the convention prepared upon Moscow’s initiative in 2001). Russian representatives are refused to visit the facilities used by Americans abroad. 

Third, pathogenic microorganisms may be created to strike a genotype, a type of animals or the population of some territory. In the summer of 2013 then Russia's chief sanitary inspector Gennady Onishchenko publicly declared that a US laboratory in Georgia is involved in programs of offensive character targeted at Russia. Iran may also be a target of US military efforts. Fourth, Americans may conduct tests of biological agents in violation of international ban to determine their virulence, lethality, the ways to deliver to the target and other parameters and characteristics. The experts of Russian defense research institute of microbiology find it possible that biological samples could have been delivered from the territory of Georgia on purpose. In 2013 there have been flare-ups of deceases in the Russian South, for instance: a break of highly contagious meningitis among children in the Rostov region, African hog cholera and foot-and-mouth decease stroke the Kuban region and Northern Caucasus. The Pentagon has acquired access to the Soviet military biological research programs giving clues to the state of Russian contemporary biological potential and the ways to counter it. According to media reports, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan turned a deaf ear to the concern voiced by Russia and transferred their biological potentials to the United States in exchange for aid. In 2005 Azerbaijan transferred 60 samples of the most dangerous bacteria to the US Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Senator Richard Lugar and Barack Obama, would-be President of the United States, acted as go-betweens in the deal. Having become Chief Executive, Mr. Obama continued to allocate funds for the corresponding defense programs. During the recent ten years the United States deployed a string of dual use laboratories across the world (Europe, Africa, and South-East Africa). Large facilities have come into function in the post-Soviet space – in Ukraine and Georgia, smaller biological stations are upgraded in Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan. Supposedly, the laboratory being built in Kazakhstan is to become part of a system called «bio missile defense». If the concern about hostile intentions on the part of the United States raised by experts is justified, then the threat posed by the Almaty facility will increase due to free exchange of goods within the framework of Customs Union, labor immigrants coming from Central Asia and the fact the sources of contagion are situated so close (there are three natural pestholes in Kyrgyzstan, in August plague killed a juvenile there for the first time since 1981). The forbidden activities related to the use of toxic agents will turn against and strike Kazakhstan and its people first. Along with that, there is a simple way to do away with the concern caused by the US-run laboratory in Almaty by guaranteeing transparency of the process at all phases, including the construction and following research. Will the Pentagon agree to place the program under international and civilian control, something US State Department officials like to talk so much about?

Dmitry Popov is the head of Ural branch of Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (Yekaterinburg)

One might reasonably conclude that the United States has outsourced war. Presently, World War III is being conducted on two continents – Asia and Africa – with two others – Europe and South America – looming on the horizon. Today, wars are crafted by the upper one percent of wealthy elitists who, using non-governmental organizations, television networks, non — profit “think tanks,” and public relations firms, can declare war on nations without a whimper from elected public officials.

Symmetric warfare is no longer an option for the global elites. World Wars I and II severely affected the investments of many of the global elite families as a result of the destruction of cities, factories, railways, seaports, and other infrastructures. The Korean, Vietnam, the Arab-Israeli, and Iraq wars were messy affairs that also adversely affected markets and destroyed valuable infrastructures. The Cold War never developed into a hot nuclear war because of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which ensured that a nuclear first strike by either the West or the East would result in total annihilation of both sides, along with the rest of the world. Even a western military attack on China would have had disastrous results for the attackers, especially since China could retaliate with a nuclear counter-attack and wipe out the U.S. Seventh Fleet and its East Asian naval bases, including Okinawa and Guam. A new type of warfare was required by the elites: asymmetric warfare – the use of unconventional warfare tactics, including information warfare, by proxies, non-state actors, agents provocateur, and fifth columns.

Largely financed by hedge fund mega-tycoon George Soros and his Central Intelligence Agency interlocutors, our present asymmetric World War III was field tested just like any new product. The “themed” revolutions were market-tested first in Serbia, and then in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan, to oust problematic governments that did not want to get on board with the dictates of the unelected and unaccountable real controllers of the financial and political destiny of the world.

Pro-western and pro-European Union governments, comprised of a number of individuals who were funded by Soros and other non-state operations established by the global elites, for example, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, Freedom House, U.S. Institute of Peace, and others funded and supported by the Houses of Rothschild, Rockefeller, Mellon, and others saw to it that new governments took root in Belgrade, Kiev, Tbilisi, and Bishkek. These new governments were not elected but took power as a result of themed street rebellions, a new manifestation of unconventional warfare. 

No longer did armies, navies, and air forces have to face each other across battlefields and battle zones and theaters of warfare. One merely had to embed fifth columnists and provocateurs inside a targeted nation's capital city, media, political party apparatus, and "civil society" infrastructure to bring about the defeat of the government outside the normal political process and replace it with a new government beholden to the desires of the central banks and global oligarchs.

The beginnings of the asymmetric world war began in Belgrade, Serbia when Otpor – a Serbian resistance movement dedicated to overthrowing the Slobodon Milosevic regime – launched the first “themed revolution.” Otpor’s symbol was a clenched fist, an emblem that would reappear in the future in other capital cities from Kiev to Cairo. Otpor received massive funding from a network of western contrivances, including George Soros’s Open Society Institute, the neo-conservative-infiltrated U.S. National Endowment for Democracy, and various European Union-funded NGOs that were intimately linked to Soros’s “democracy engineering” operations.

The playbook used for Otpor in Serbia and by similar organizations in toppling the governments of Georgia in the Rose Revolution, Ukraine in the Orange Revolution, and Kyrgyzstan in the Tulip Revolution, was developed by University of Massachusetts professor Gene Sharp, the founder of the Boston-based NGO, the Albert Einstein Institute, which helped train Otpor activists in civil disobedience and popular resistance campaigns designed to overthrow governments, those democratically-elected and those not. Albert Einstein Institute-trained provocateurs launched popular resistance campaigns around the world aimed at replacing governments unwilling to acquiesce to the dictates of Western elites. Internal opposition forces, all acolytes of Sharp, for instance Kmara, which helped install the pro-Western and pro-Israeli Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia; Pora in Ukraine that propelled pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into the presidency; and KelKel in Kyrgyzstan that replaced Askar Akayev with the corrupt Kurmanbek Bakiyev. 

The domino effect of the themed revolutions saw Serbs helping to overthrow the Georgian government, then Serbs and Georgians flocking to Kiev to oust the Ukrainian government, and Georgians and Ukrainians being directly involved in the insurrection in Bishkek. The neo-conservatives and Sharp had borrowed a page from the Communists and the international proletarian movement that saw Communist cadres fight against capitalists and fascists in foreign civil wars, for example, the Spanish Civil War and conflicts in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Sharp was an alumnus of Harvard University’s CIA-linked Center for International Affairs, also abbreviated “CIA,” which is not coincidental. Harvard and the CIA of Langley, Virginia have long maintained a close relationship. In fact, Sharp was never interested in ensuring the will of the people to map out their own future but was putting into practice the theory of asymmetric warfare – the vanquishing of enemies through the use of proxy internal forces without the requirement for invading foreign armies and the massive death and destruction associated with such action.

Many of Sharp’s tactics have been seen in practice in many asymmetric warfare targets. These include the creation of a perception of a successful movement, even if there is not one. The use of western-controlled news networks like Fox News that showed a video clip of anti-austerity Greek rioters in Athens falsely depicted as anti-government protesters in Moscow and Al Jazeera’s use of a video erroneously showing a U.S.- and Saudi-backed bloody crackdown of pro-democracy protesters by Bahrain’s security forces as the bloody repression of protesters by Syria’s government are examples of Sharp’s propaganda and disinformation tactics.

Cultivating foreign support is another key element of Sharp’s asymmetric warfare tactics. The virtual control exercised by Soros over Human Rights Watch after the multi-billionaire hedge fund kingpin donated $100 million to the group is a case in point. The human rights NGO was at the forefront of hyping “atrocities” committed by the Qaddafi regime in Libya but remained largely silent on Libyan rebel atrocities committed against Libyan and African blacks, as well as Qaddafi loyalists. In so doing, Human Rights Watch had a powerful accomplice in the International Criminal Court, which tended to look the other way when CIA- and Saudi- and Qatari’ supported Libyan rebels were committing the massacres.

Another Sharp tactic is to seek change outside the electoral system. This tactic was evident in the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine, where election results were rejected, and in the recent Russian parliamentary election, where Soros- and U.S. neocon-financed election monitoring groups like Golos rejected the outcome of the election and used shills like former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev to call for the nullification of the election. Interference following the Sharp and Soros methodology can also be seen in the presidential candidacies of Russian oligarch and New Jersey Nets basketball owner Mikhail Prokhorov and the backing by western propaganda outlets like the Christian Science Monitor (now derided as the “Christian Zionist Monitor” after its takeover by interests who favor a neo-imperialist U.S. foreign policy) of Moscow street protest veteran Alexei Navalny.

Sharp and Soros are on the same page in calling for the internal opposition forces’ use of the Internet, fax, and social networks like Facebook and Twitter to advance their agendas. 

In the next phases of World War III, the asymmetric warriors of the Pentagon and their adjunct non-state actors will continue to turn up the heat in the Arab World, with the revolutions in Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen, and Egypt, after a somewhat shaky start that saw the advancement of Islamist groups, being brought under more western and NATO control. Russia’s presidential election and a turndown in the Chinese economy, with growing village-based dissent among China’s growing middle class, will present further opportunities for the promoters of World War III. The sudden death of North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Il has also resulted in a call for an expansion of social networking operations, most notably by the CIA- and Soros-infested Washington Post, inside Asia’s hermit kingdom. 

Myanmar, China’s restive provinces of Tibet and East Turkestan, Lebanon, Iran, Algeria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Nepal, Belarus, Ecuador, Bolivia, Pakistan, Laos, and the two Congos also present opportunities for the World War III architects. Those who seek to extend American and global elitist control over the entire planet will not rest until every acre of land comes under the firm control of the oligarchs of Wall Street, the spymasters of the CIA, and the globalist business cartels and families.

Migration is something which has commenced since the onset of human civilization. Hundreds theories circulate as to when and how migration started. Without going further deep into these theories, it can be safely argued that migration is a legitimate human vocation, and perhaps this is a process which fostered flourishing of human civilization in all continents including continents of Americas and Australia. This process still continues in some parts of the world, particularly to countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand in a massive scale, though it happens in other countries as well. Migration is a legal process recognized by international as well as national laws. Prominent factors that foster migration include poverty, unemployment, search for better life, higher aspirations, and usually this process is unilinear as it takes place from developing to developed countries. Many countries have also encouraged migration as it facilitates in compensating depleting population or skilled and unskilled laborers or both.

Migration per se is not the problem. The problem lies with illegal migration, that contravenes national as well as international laws. There are hundreds of rackets in the world which facilitate illegal migration. In fact, this has emerged as a booming market. Coming across newspaper reports, one can find numerous cases illegal migration such as how boats were seized on Australia coast, or New Zealand coast, or people living in other countries with lapsed documents or forged documents, etc. Last week, New Zealand government had intercepted and seized a boat carrying about 85 people as illegal migrants. As illegal migrants lack valid documents such as passports, visas, or work permits, it becomes difficult to trace out their details in terms of place of origin, their original names, etc. And this is one of the most critical parts of the story of illegal migration as they are often pushed willingly or unwillingly towards illegal activities such as drug trafficking, arms trafficking, extremism and terrorism. Many countries have raised the issue of illegal migration and its debilitating impacts on local politics and society. Indiaclaims that there are about 20 million illegal migrants in its territory. Similarly, one can find data in this context in many countries including Russia, Kazakhstan, countries of Western Europe, and in many other countries as well.

President Nazarbayev raised this issue in the first of week of this month in parliament and strongly argued for enacting a law regulating migration and religion as he could find a link between illegal immigration and Islamic extremism in his country…To quote him, “The parliament has to consider adopting a law on religious activity … It is about protecting the state from religious extremism.”’ He further observed, “Whoever wants may come here, whoever wants may open a mosque and name it after his father. No one knows what these mosques are really doing, no one has approved (their opening) … But, as a state, we should put our home in order.” Perhaps it does not come as a surprise from the leader of the biggest country in Central Asia, with having 70 per cent of Muslim population. The Central Asian leaders are concerned at the rate of illegal immigration to their countries and its linkage to extremism and terrorism. One can juxtapose the concerns of Nazarbayev to the concerns expressed by a former Central Asian leader Kurmanbek Bakiyev in 2009 at Shanghai Cooperation Organization. In the context of illegal migration from Afghanistan towards Central Asia, Bakiyev observed that “If the conflict against the Taliban deepens further in Afghanistan, which direction will people head in? God help us, they will move toward Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and beyond.” The meeting of CIS leaders at Dushanbe this month struck the right chord in emphasizing that there must be cooperation between the countries of the region to tackle the menace of extremism and terrorism. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov while participating in the meeting observed, “Cooperation within the Commonwealth of Independent States brings positive results in the economy, labour migration and the struggle against organized crime, drug trade, extremism and terrorism.” Perhaps that is the right approach. Because in the era of globalization and interconnectedness with the proliferation and penetration of information technologies, it is difficult to fight the menaces of illegal migration, extremism and terrorism by wherewithal of a single country, howsoever powerful it may be.

The extreme advocates of multiculturalism may be skeptical at a policy which aims at strictly regulating migration. There is an element of sense in this argument, but the argument in its extreme form cannot be implemented in its full import. Migration can be welcome, and any persecution of minorities whether on the basis of religion, ethnic stock, or other values and practices must be checked. Any discrimination on the basis of majoritarianism vs. and minoritarianism must also be stopped. No sensible person will welcome the Norwegian shootout July this year killing 72 people, mostly belonging to minority groups. There needs to be an evolution of a framework in which diverse cultures and multiethnic ethos of a society can be reconciled with national security and integrity. In contrast to 1980s and early 1990s, the recent years have shown the rising friction between migratory communities and the settled communities in various parts of the world. The rise of far right and their sympathizers in some of these countries has further complicated the problem. Switzerland banning building of new mosques and France banning burqa (veil) are some of the issues which have been seriously debated in recent years, bringing into focus the contested nature of migration policies. These developments have also brought into focus the churning process currently undergoing in policy making in many countries towards confronting these emerging issues.

These issues become further complicated when this complicated symbiosis between migration, extremism and terrorism is overlooked in an overarching framework of enforcing a particular policy or policies. In this context, Libya provides one of stark examples. Reports suggest one of tribal communities called Berber spanning borders of Libya and Algeria, with having close links with extremist groups were earlier persecuted by Gaddafi regime. The Al Qaeda members had illegally migrated to these areas and opened their cells with the support of this group. One of Berber leaders named Mokhtar Belmokhtar had joined Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb. While the rebels were fighting Gaddafi forces under the leadership of National Transitional Council, the community fought along with the rebels against Gaddafi. While no one can exonerate Gaddafi from his excesses, such collusion between forces of extremism and terrorism and the transitional forces may achieve desired results in short run, but in long run it may make future prospects of peace and stability in the region murkier.

Dr Debidatta Aurobinda Mahapatra is part of the research faculty at the Centre for Central Eurasian Studies, University of Mumbai, India.

For the first time in Kyrgyzstan's post-Soviet history, the elections which are due in the fall of 2011 present the republic with a chance to name a new country leader at the polling booths rather than at the peak of public unrest. Its previous two regime changes which culminated in the unseating of Askar Akayev and Kurmanbek Bakiyev resulted from the violent 2005 and 2010 coups. However, the widespread impression at the moment is that even the coming legitimate regime change is unlikely to bring the much-needed stability to the republic…

Uncertainty around the elections persisted until recently. It took Kyrgyzstan's legislature and interim president Roza Otunbayeva suspiciously long to reach an agreement on the elections date which was set to October 30, 2011 only on the closing day of the parliament's spring session. Even after sealing the deal, the parliament had to convene out of schedule to confirm the membership of the central electoral commission, thus finally enabling the actual preparations for the vote.

The central electoral commission unveiled a schedule of election activities on July 11. According to the plan, presidential hopefuls are to be nominated between June 30 and August 16. As the next step, candidates must prove their fluency in the Kyrgyz language. The official registration deadline is September 25 which is also the starting date for the presidential campaigns which are to close in the morning of October 29. The deadline for ballot counting is November 20, with an extra month left for a possible runoff. The election final result must be announced by December 31, 2011, the date Otunbayeva's term expires.

The race over presidency in Kyrgyzstan is going to be serious. At the moment, there is no runner in the game with strong support in both south and north of the regionally divided republic, meaning that widening the regional connections will be critical to the success of every campaigner. According to Kyrgyz commentator Sergei Masaulov, the optimal strategy for candidates would be to build convincing partnerships outside of their home regions: southerners would have to seek out allies in the north and vice versa.

Nationalism is expected to factor significantly into the presidential campaign considering that – with memories of last year's Osh massacre still vivid – some of the contenders will be selling their candidacies as those of defenders of the Kyrgyz nation and its traditional values. Combined with nationalist appeals, the emotionally loaded competition can easily escalate into a new round of inter-ethnic clashes which would further widen the gap between the north and the south of Kyrgyzstan.

It has to be taken into account that the key element of the election's intrigue is perhaps not who prevails in the race but how the winner will be trying to rebuild the presidential authority in Kyrgyzstan. All the Kyrgyz constitution in its present shape leaves to the president is the control over the foreign policy and the law-enforcement plus the army conglomerate. In today's Kyrgyzstan, the president has no authority to disband the government or to redirect the economic policies. With neither of the current presidential hopefuls willing to accept the limitations, a new phase of wrestling for power instigated by the new president appears imminent by the early 2012.

At the moment over a dozen Kyrgyz politicians appear to be ready to stake election bids, and the majority of Kyrgyz political parties have held campaign-opening congresses. Ata-Zhurt, the champion of the past parliamentary elections, announced that its leader Kamchybek Tashiev would run for president, though a month ago a question mark hung over his candidacy due to criminal charges pressed for beating up a party colleague Bakhadyr Sulaimanov. Tashiev had to publicly apologize to Sulaimanov to remove the obstacle to joining the presidential race.

Banker Marat Sultanov, also from Ata-Zhurt, plans to run on his own regardless of the party's undivided support for Tashiev. Another Ata-Zhurt member, the party's speaker Akhmatbek Keldibekov, used to be seen as a potential front-runner but seems determined to keep his current post at the cost of presidential ambitions.

The Ar-Namys party held primaries in which its leader and former Kyrgyz prime minister Felix Kulov stayed out of the list. The rivals were Anarbek Kalmatov and Akylbek Zhaparov. The former prevailed, but the Ar-Namys political council decided to postpone the nomination. The Ata-Meken party similarly remains undecided over its nominee and plans to announce its candidate this August, with the shortlist comprising party leader Omurbek Tekebayev and two former Kyrgyz attorney generals Kubatbek Baibolov and Rovshan Zheenbekov.

The Butun Kyrgyzstan party which suffered a crushing defeat in the last parliamentary elections is campaigning energetically in the southern part of Kyrgyzstan and hopes to stage a comeback as its leader Adakhan Madumarov intends to storm the Kyrgyz presidency.

Almazbek Atambayev, the Kyrgyz premier, a highly popular figure in Kyrgyzstan, and a clear potential favorite in the presidential race, says he will decide this August whether to enter the presidential race. Tentatively unsure of his prospects, Atambayev intends to wait till the finishing touches are put on the list of contenders and to assess his own chances based on what transpires.

Along with high-profile figures, several politicians evidently having no hope to make it to Kyrgyzstan's presidential office do plan to run in order to end their bids with endorsing the luckier peers and earn posts in the new government as a reward.

The candidate who emerges from the presidential race in Kyrgyzstan – whoever the individual eventually happens to be – will face a challenging legacy. The Kyrgyz economy is in bad shape will hardly get any healthier in the coming two or three years. A group led by economist Azamat Dikambayev, which surveys on a regular basis Kyrgyzstan's socioeconomic condition, says by the end of 2011 the budget deficit currently estimated at 22-24 bn soms will likely shrink to 14 bn, but 2012-2014 will put the republic under a difficult test. The budget will come under additional pressure as a result of the government's decision to up teachers' and medical doctors' pay. It is unclear how Kyrgyzstan is going to handle its problems related to the borders with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, plus the volumes of re-export of Chinese products to CIS via Kyrgyzstan, a critical source of revenue for the Kyrgyz economy, are on a downward trend. Notably, the customs union – a joint enterprise of Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, the tree countries accounting for over 50% of Kyrgyzstan's foreign trade – could offer the republic a viable solution to a portion of its pressing problems.

"Cooperation in security is a top priority for the SCO," according to a spokesman of the Chinese Defense Ministry speaking a few days earlier. Certainly the focus on security has not diminished over the years. In an article to mark the Astana Summit Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi recalled: "We have launched more than 10 joint anti-terror drills over the past decade and worked together to combat drug trafficking and cross-border organized crimes." If I recall correctly the first Chinese participation in a joint military exercise with foreign forces was an anti terrorist exercise with Kyrgyzstan Oct. 2002 along the Kyrgyz border with China’s Xinjiang province. So it would seem that there has been at least one joint anti terrorism exercise every year since then. This is a subject of abiding interest also to Russia which took the initiative under the banner of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) to set up a branch of the Anti terrorism centre in Bishkek. Russia also participated in the first anti terrorism military exercise in 2003 when the then 5 members of the SCO (less Uzbekistan which joined the SCO later) sent large contingents to the Kazakh city of Ucharal that lies on the border of China’s Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. While I do not have the exact figures Russia has been conducting such exercises with its SCO partners with and without China’s participation also during this last decade. Russia’s interest it seems is two fold. First terrorist activity could be directed towards or support indigenous movements in Russia’s Muslim provinces. Second, much of the terrorist activity also serves as a cover for drug trafficking from Afghanistan, which has been, for many years now, a matter of enormous concern to Russia.

It is interesting however to note that in the ten years that the organization has been in existence other facets of the relations between the member countries have acquired an added significance. The host of the Summit, Kazakhstan, and China have under the framework of SCO set up the China-Kazakhstan Horgos International Border Cooperation Center, covering some 3.43 sq. kms. in China and 1.85 sq. kms in Kazakhstan at a cost of 880 million Yuan as a transnational cooperation zone and what they call a demonstration area of regional cooperation under the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). President Hu Jintao who is paying a state visit for three days before attending the summit is expected to sign some further agreements on economic cooperation between the two countries to further enhance the trade between the two countries, which in 2010 was about 20.4 billion, or a fifty fold increase over the figures of a decade ago.

President Hu Jintao is expected to visit Russia immediately after the Astana Summit and will there commemorate the 10^th anniversary of the China-Russia Treaty on Good-Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation. There will also one can assume be a discussion of the long and protracted negotiations on the supply of Russian gas to China. During a recent visit to China President Medvedev had talked about the gap between the position of the two sides having been narrowed and seemed to suggest that an agreement in the near future was possible. This would be welcome news for energy hungry China and would provide the financing Russia needs to develop its energy potential further. Trade between the two countries, which stood at $60 billion in 2010 and made China Russia’s largest trading partner, could according to President Hu reach the figure of $100 billion in three to five years as proposed by President Medvedev.

On another plane the Chinese development of its military flows in part from its collaborative relations with Russia. China’s first aircraft carrier, which is still some time from completion, is apparently being built on the hull of a Russian warship that China acquired some years ago. Russia’s position as one of the biggest arms exporters in the world depends on the Chinese market for a major part of its sales.

While the two countries are probably not totally in agreement on the nature of the relationship each will maintain with the other members of the SCO – there are contending geopolitical considerations – there is no disagreement on the need to keep the region free of the “three evils”. There is also no doubt that both have a concern about the nature of the relationship that the USA in particular and the West in general maintains with the region and in this context the utilization of the enormous energy resources of the region.

Much has been made in part of the media in the SCO countries about the reservations that the USA has with regard to the SCO and its objectives. The fact is that the SCO’s principal reason for being -“fighting the three evils”- is a goal that the USA and its allies are supposed to share. For them the spread of an Al-Qaeda like ideology to the Central Asian Republics would multiply the problems they face and have been unsuccessful in resolving in Afghanistan. They know that in part the creation of the SCO was inspired not only by the “separatism’ by the ETIM (Eastern Turkestan Independence Movement) but by the widespread fear in the Central Asian Republics of the Taliban ideology which held sway in Afghanistan and by the shelter that Afghanistan provided for Numangani’s IMU (Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan). They cannot but acknowledge that success has attended the SCO efforts and this has helped their own anti terror campaign.

Since its inception as a regional anti terrorist organization the SCO has started evolving into a more comprehensive regional body concerned with tackling all the diverse problems that the region faces and that need regional solutions. This is a natural development and has to be accepted as such. I know that a large body of American analysts and academicians with whom I attended meetings devoted to the question of peace and stability in Asia argued strongly that the USA must seek observer status at the SCO and develop a cooperative relationship with that organization. Given the current situation in the region and the planned drawdown if not complete withdrawal of US and NATO forces from Afghanistan this will now be something that the Washington pundits will have to consider seriously.

It would be right to say that the SCO countries can take pride in the degree to which they have through this cooperative mechanism been able to achieve their principal goal. The SCO may not have been able to do much during the upheaval in Kyrgyzstan or the civil rights abuses in Uzbekistan but that was not the stated objective. They can also take pride in what they have bee able to achieve in terms of furthering economic cooperation for the enhancement of which one would presume the Summit would provide new opportunities.

It is of course undeniable that in so far as the countries of the region are concerned the focus of attention will be on what the Summit chooses to do with regard to the question of expanding membership to the three states now enjoying “observer status” – Pakistan, India and Iran – and about granting observer status or more to Afghanistan…The foreign Ministers of the SCO countries have been discussing this question since last year and this year in their meeting in May they finalized a “the draft Memorandum of Obligations of a Candidate Country with the aim of obtaining SCO member status”. In the past the SCO had maintained that they had placed a bar on the expansion of the SCO. This was attributed to the differences between China and Russia on the eligibility for membership of Pakistan and India with Russia supporting the Indian cause and China the Pakistani. It is safe to presume that they have now moved towards establishing conditions on membership for which clearly the most eligible are Pakistan, India and Iran these differences have been resolved.

Of particular interest in this regard is also the application by Afghanistan for observer status. Virtually every communiqué issued after a SCO meeting has referred to the situation in Afghanistan and the efforts that the SCO countries have made towards normalizing the situation in that country. It would seem logical to assume that in these circumstances and given that concern about terrorism in Central Asia has focused on Afghanistan, that this application will be approved.

What changes will this expansion bring? More on that and the results of the Summit in my next article.