Book Review and thoughts...

Having finished the book "Jihad - The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia" sometime last week, this post is a summary of my thoughts about the issues highlighted in the book.

In General
The book is an interesting read, especially for those interested in the history of the region, in foreign policies and the power play among neighbouring states, and in the evolution of people's mindsets about Islam. What makes it an even more captivating read is that information is presented in a relatively un-biased way. The author presents facts from bureaucrats and militants alike, he presents facts from the history of these nations and their interactions with each other, he presents information about the different branches of Islam. All these coming from a Muslim and a journalist with years of experience in the region lends credibility and also removes possibility of the information being mis-interpreted in a negative way. (you get this with some books written about Islam by non-Muslims)

Collaboration VS Self-interest in Power Play of Countries
The author makes a very clear point that countries such as the US, Russia, China, Pakistan, Turkey etc all have keen interest in the Central Asian states. This is largely due to the huge reserves of oil and natural gas that these states are sitting on. While international aid has been extended to the Central Asian states and some states are making an effort to draw in foreign investment, these moves have yet to translate into real economic and social reforms that benefit the average citizen on the streets due to overriding presence of corruption. The author also points out that much of these aid and investments are not conditional on reforms taking place, and this reflects the gap between the profit-driven and self-interest mindsets that exists as opposed to the a bigger-picture and socially responsible mindsets that are needed.

The author presents a lot more points regarding the power play between states interested in the region, as well as the self-interest attitudes of governments within the Central Asian states themselves so I won't reveal them all.

Something that really struck me was the difficult balance facing states and governments in today's highly globalised world. These institutions generally pursue the concept of globalisation, especially since it facilitates so much of our trade, investments and economies today. Yet at the same time, there exists the 'general understanding' of a non-intervention policy outside of our own countries, which in basic terms simply means that as my neighbour, you are free to comment on what's happening in my house but you don't shouldn't take any action or interfere too much since it's not your house, even if my actions may be causing you discomfort.

There's no better example of this difficulty than that of the financial crisis happening right now. As the melt-down of Wall Street in the US sends shockwaves through the global community and governments and banks scramble to take action, we see how on one hand, the IMF is calling for a coordinated approach among European nations and on the other hand, Ireland and Germany have gone ahead with their own stands and actions. So on one hand, we can see how it makes sense that these countries are acting to protect the interests of their own people, and on the other hand, we see how sensitive it is when there are expectations (in the union) to make a collective stand for the greater good.

'What counts above all is coordination and the will not to act each for himself as we have seen a little bit in some European cases.'
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND CHIEF DOMINIQUE STRAUSS-KAHN

So while globalisation has taken off, along with the flourishing of trade laws, global governing bodies and international standards, we are still struggling with the other doors that globalisation opens up. How do we manage the safety and interests of our own countries while taking a consistent stand on the actions of other countries whose actions impact us? If trade and economic relations are such key drivers for the opening of a country's doors to the world that they can easily become the trump card for placing pressure for positive change, why then has the concept of social responsibility still only remained within the sphere of companies and businesses instead of being extended between states? instead of something driven together by both government and companies?