Comments on: Baran, Starr, and Cornell on Islamic Radicalism in Central Asia

By: behrang

behrang — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 04:18:04 +0000

kose sher

By: kyrgyzstan.neweurasia.net » Round up of blogging activitiy in Kyrgyztan

kyrgyzstan.neweurasia.net » Round up of blogging activitiy in Kyrgyztan — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:50:58 +0000

[...] Along these lines Registan.net posts a note about the monograph being published by John Hopkins University’s Nitze School of Advanced International Studies’ Central Asia-Caucasus Institute. Apparently the issue of Islamic fundamentalism is not solely an internal problem of Central Asian countries facing this evil on their own territory. Laurence in his posting describes the approach implemented by well known scholars dealing with issues of the development of Islamist extremist organizations. Though the quality of the analyses is questioned by Registan.net with an emphasis on this research being slightly outdated. [...]

By: David

David — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:36:43 +0000

The Turkish thing is just Baran’s usual stuff (she’s of Turkish background). Its not thought through, and doesn’t take account of CA governments’ paranoia about Turkish schools, politicians etc, as far too Islamist for their taste. Its just one of many unsupported assertions that would take an age to challenge. Baran is not known for her wide range of references – indeed none of the authors seems to have any research in Osh, say, or Andijan. They go to conferences, and that’s about it. The stuff on HT and the IMU is particularly weak. The Makarenko reference seems to show how little research they have done. The don’t cite the main works on HT, or on the IMU. Sadly, this will feed through to US policy-makers, I suppose, – Baran is close to the neocon circuit – but why the Finns are funding it is beyond me. Presumably they don’t know any better.

By: Alexander

Alexander — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:05:20 +0000

And, of course, the two are not mutually exclusive.

By: Alexander

Alexander — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:01:35 +0000

I know – proven by whom, I wonder? I don’t think that was referenced. The link between Dostum and the Uzbek government requires further investigation in my view – I’m not sure Murray’s case is proven either, but they should at least have mentioned it. However, we’re looking in the wrong place if we want a balanced analysis of Security threats in CA.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:48:14 +0000

Oops, misquotation; it should read: ‘the link between drug trafficking and religious extremism is proven beyond doubt’.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:41:52 +0000

Yes, this report certainly raises one’s eyebrow. Alexander, I note you referred to Craig Murray’s book. In contrast to these authors, who state that ‘the link between drug trafficking and religious extremism is proven doubt’ (p53), Murray argues that the real link is between Rachid Dostum and the Uzbek government.

Moreover, the collapse of the Taliban regime, who at different times wavered between increrasing or reducing opium production, means that this kind of analysis is somewhat out of date. Again, Cornell et al make a bold statement with no refrence to back it up.

Frankly, if I had the cojones and the wherewithal (and not least the moral sense of gnat), I’d be a drug trafficker, regardless of my religious beliefs. Why? because there’s a sh*tload of money in it!

By: Mata Hari

Mata Hari — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:16:47 +0000

To Alexander: Interesting analysis. You highlighted the most important problem, the lack of referencing and valid sources. I don’t want to tag them, but Starr, and Cornell are becoming notoriously famous as billboard researchers… or correctly to say lobbyists. As for Baran, you should listen to one of her lectures. She was writing about oil, and now she is writing about religious fundemetalism. Right why now, since oil and fundementalism is “the same”??? There is no logic, but sheer opportunism. Nothing is worse than a convert, not necessarrily religious, but she wants to be more American than she is a Turk.

By: Alexander

Alexander — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:55:13 +0000

And when I say two, I mean Starr and Cornell. I don’t know anything about Baran

By: Alexander

Alexander — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:53:01 +0000

In this, as in most of their other papers, there’s a singular lack of sources (only twenty-five notes for a fifty-seven page article). Many of the most controversial assertions and assumptions are entirely unrefeferences. The association of “State Islam” in Uzbekistan in particular with brutal, corrupt and economically failing regimes means that pinning your hopes on this as the best means of defeating the extremists is a risky strategy. To characterise it as being the same as the structures which existed under the Khanates shows a total lack of understanding of where the ulama have traditionally derived their authority from: indeed, in their insistence that Islam has always been dependent on the state in Central Asia they recall the idiotic assumptions which lead the Russians to the policy “Ignorirovanie” in 1867-1917. More specifically, if members of the Tabligh Jamaat are “at risk of supporting or joining terrorist groups”, then I suppose we’d better arrest the Pakistan cricket team, currently touring England, who have been considerably influenced by the Tabligh through the former opening batsman Saeed Anwar, who joined it after his daughter died. I daresay members of evangelical churches in America are also “at risk of supporting or joining terrorist groups” by these sloppy criteria, but they don’t seem to be subject to this sort of paranoia. They do not even address the suggestion (made most recently in Murray’s book) that there was something distinctly fishy about the March 2004 attacks in Uzbekistan, or that the so-called “Islamic Jihad Group” has actually been invented by the SNB. Whatever one’s opinion, given the long Soviet traditions of agent provocateur activity and invented “enemies of the state” this view at least deserved some consideration. Their description of the prelude to the Andijan massacre is wholly tendentious and is not borne out by the film footage released by the Uzbek Government itself. Uzbekistan was already looking for an excuse to boot the Americans out, the muted criticism after Andijan gave them that. Khodjend is not an “Uzbek City” – I’ve been there, most people speak Tajik, something borne out in early censuses. Whilst there’s nothing too objectionable in the recommendations they make, the preceding discussion is mendacious, poorly-referenced, often inaccurate, and gives us no real sense of just how strong Islamic extremism in Central Asia really is – the authors clearly don’t know, but it suits their agenda to exaggerate it. Quite how two such pathetic shysters got jobs in a reputable University like Johns Hopkins is beyond me.