Turkmenistan: the quid pro quo

The moral high ground
Today, the International Crisis Group has sent out a bunch of useful information on Central Asia, and I can't wait to read all of the in-depth work they’ve done on Pakistan.  On Turkmenistan, ICG's Mr. Schutte at has also written a new op-ed, featured in the EU Observer, about clarifying the goals, aims, and quid pro quo between European states and Turkmenistan in diplomatic relations.  This “European clarification” resonates deeply in the United States and the international community in general, including myself.  But not today: I’m getting a little ill from hanging out with the prudes.

Being correct isn't everything
As previously reported, Mr. Berdymukhamedov visited the EU on November 5th.  Despite this being a watershed occurence, or, a potential beginning for all kinds of discussions, here's the principled, one-note, pro forma prescription, all over Central Asia without differentiation:

Beyond the smiles and formal statements, one hopes they took the opportunity to remind the Turkmen leader that the EU's friendship has a price.

One year ago, [under the late President Niyazov] the European Parliament's International Trade Committee made that price clear, . . . [they] would only give its approval to an Interim Trade Agreement “if concrete progress on the human rights situation is achieved”.

Well, there's complete clarity here.  But it leaves out one very important intangible.

Loyalty to friends:  
You don't want a friend that is watching you for every sign of a screw-up.  Even more, afraid of your screw-up, so much so that they can broadcast your failings to the world and disavow meaningful association with you at the first sign of trouble.   Guess what: Turkmenistan doesn't either.  Also, democracies change their policies under each leader: it's difficult for states such as Turkmenistan to seriously commit to a long-term relationship with a United States whose international policies change drastically every eight years. 

Second of all, let's talk economic development: okay, let's talk natural gas.  By itself, it's not hypocritical for the EU or anyone else to be interested in natural resources.  The problem is that resource purchases are also straight quid pro quo–money for energy–and that set of transactions also does not lead to political loyalty in the end.

A style problem:
It's a style problem for the EU, the humanitarians, and the policy prescriptors.  You can't fault the analysis, only the delivery.  Mr. Schotte details the small promise of one Internet cafe with tight security, as opposed to full-out media transparency.  The new arrests of some officials and the new amnesties for others are bewildering:

Others point to the end-of-Ramadan release of 9000 prisoners as a sign of softening attitude towards the opposition, but the move was so sudden and random, it seems to have been almost a whim. And none of those set free is known to have been a political prisoner. Some former victims of political repression were allowed to flee the country, but that seems more an attempt to silence opposition within the country than a signal of any new freedom to travel abroad.

First of all, I wouldn't count on the fact that what looks random from the outside, such as the unannounced release of prisoners, is actually random.   

But what's wrong with asking for information rather than demanding it?  Asking to put in some internet cafes rather than dissing the one that's there?  Arranging to have broadband capacity installed with cell phones rather than being contemptuous that it's not already available?  Behind the scenes, diplomats are doing just that–and are frequently put off because we’re so busy talking about the target state's deficiencies and stripping their pride.

And sometimes pride is the pivot. Turkmenistan has been a failed state in all but name.  Mr. Berdymukhamedov seems to understand that Mr. Niyazov perverted or killed every institution in Turkmenistan.  He's been out in the world, trying to develop relationships.  I don't consider that “grasping at straws” but evidence of real opportunity.

The style factor– and the substance
This state failure makes it imperative to include many of the reforms that the ICG editorial has noted.  But we’re not going to get there unless we promise to stick with our new friend, Turkmenistan.  We have to assume that from an international community point of view that Turkmenistan will continue to misstep, go too slow, refuse or balk at new reforms.   

And friends ask each other for favors: but they don't present a list of demands at the moment of introduction.  At the least, they ask how you’re doing first.  They compliment you.  They listen to your dreams, plans, and problems.  They follow up and they follow through.  They catch your back.  Sometimes, they tell you off: but most of the time–not.  That's the part of the quid pro quo that we seem to be missing.