Comments on: Of Nomadism & Diplomacy

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 00:58:12 +0000

I’m reading Kennan’s two volume history of U.S.-Russian relations after St. Petersburg’s withdrawal from WWI, and that is the exact point he makes about (failed and misdirected) U.S. efforts to create ties with the transitional government following the fall of the monarchy.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:57:54 +0000

Nope, I didn’t argue that, and I’m not sure anyone would. But those making policy should have a greater awareness of the social and cultural environment in which foreign governments operate.

By: Laurence

Laurence — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:04:58 +0000

Nathan, I think I read a draft of your thesis a while ago and it was excellent in terms of explaining local politics–but I didn’t think you argued local clan politics should be at the center of American foreign policy towards Central Asia, unless I misunderstood your point…

By: Nathan

Nathan — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:56:12 +0000

Laurence, obviously one can go overboard, but the important point is that there needs to be an understanding that “how business is done” in many parts of the world is according to the unwritten rules of informal institutions. Further, if one is to understand informal institutions, one must examine the cultural and historical milieu of a society. I don’t think that anyone in the story advocates using a romanticized understanding of nomadism as a roadmap for understanding modern Central Asian politics, and I certainly do not myself. I do find it helpful to examine whether or not the social structures that emerged in previously nomadic societies persist and influence modern politics.

But, if you want to see my argument on this, read my thesis. Feel free to disagree.

Much of the rest of what you write strikes me as awfully caricatured when leveled against academia. I’ve read plenty of academic literature on Central Asia and don’t find what you cite — which certainly may be public attitudes of certain academics — the least bit indicative of the literature.

As for the policy, no one is necessarily saying that we shouldn’t work with the governments in the region. I believe though that we can better understand the governments’ motivations if we understand the domestic political environments in which they operate. On the point of not trying to undermine or overthrow governments, do you think it is good policy for western governments to send the signal to Central Asian (or any, for that matter…) governments that anything goes in the domestic arena?

By: Laurence

Laurence — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:47:14 +0000

Nathan, I’m afraid all the talk of more emphasis on nomadism and tribalism, while appealing for tourists and lovers of the “exotic”, is as off-base as saying to do business with the US one must understand the relationship between WASPs, Irish-Americans, Native Americans, Mexican-Americans, African-Americans, Southerners, Texans, Westerners, Ivy Leaguers, et al. What a waste of time. Just learn how business is done, and then do it. IMHO, The US has faced setbacks in Central Asia because of failed geopolitical strategies that operate at a different level from clan politics, based upon an imaginative failure to understand the national interests of Central Asian states rather than clan, tribe, or religion. In order for the US to prosper in the region, the US government might try to take the existing states and their leaders seriously and work with them as legitimate sovereign governments rather than attempt to undermine or overthrow them. I got very tired of Americans saying that Central Asian nations were fakes created by Stalin and calling them names like “Trashcanistan.” Guess what? The US is a fake nation created by politicians. It’s not organic, and doesn’t have a unified ethnic composition. IMHO, it is condescending attitudes like those, found in scholarly literature that doesn’t acknowledge fundamentalist Islam was a colonialist imperialist project which oppressed Central Asians for generations and is both feared and hated by most of the population–concomitant with an adolescent romanticization of nomadism, tribal life, or Sha’aria–that lie at the root of America’s problem in the region. Modernity, meaning, ExxonMobil, GE, Microsoft, Apple, McDonald’s, Google, Starbucks, Coca-Cola are what we have to offer and where America’s comparative advantages lie. We should stick to what we know, treat people as equal human beings, and see what happens. The inhabitants of Central Asia can handle their tribal and nomadic past on their own….