US unilateralism fuels great power rivalry in Central Asia
Todd Diamond
The Bush Administration’s strategic approach in Central Asia has come
under criticism from regional experts. At a recent conference in Washington, DC, some
scholars said the US unilateralist approach was fueling the great power rivalry in Central
Asia.
In the Bush Administration’s National Security Strategy, adopted in
2002, the United States claimed the right to engage in preemptive action. Such rhetoric
raised concerns in Central Asia about US unilateralism. The Bush administration sought to
assuage those concerns by stating in its strategic blueprint that Washington would seek to
"preserve peace by building good relationships among the great powers."
Some participants at the September 23 conference, sponsored by the
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Kennan Institute, maintained that
US moves in Central Asia undermined the National Security Strategy’s stated goal of
keeping great power rivalries in check. The general perception that the United States has
acted solely out of self-interest since the September 11 terrorist tragedy has prompted
other regional powers in Central Asia, namely Russia, to take countermeasures, creating an
unsettling dynamic.
Perhaps the starkest evidence of the US-Russian rivalry in Central Asia
is in Kyrgyzstan, where both Washington and Moscow have established military bases outside
Bishkek. [For
additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive].
The United States has "made a significant contribution to the
intensification of that rivalry," said Mehrdad Haghayeghi, a political scientist at
Southwest Missouri State University. "Basically you have Russia on the offensive [in
Central Asia] partly because of the US pursuit of unilateralism."
Participants at the conference, "Security Dilemmas in Central
Asia: Competition for Influence," focused on the potential consequences of the new
great power rivalry. The general consensus was that US actions are driven by a need to
support ongoing military operations in Afghanistan. [For
background information see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Nikolai Zlobin, a Russian academic who is the director of Russian and
Asian programs at the Washington-based Center for Defense Information, contended that
while the United States went to Central Asia only to "solve the Afghan problem,"
Russia has more immediate regional interests that compel Moscow to maintain a long-term
presence. Russia has moved to cement its Central Asian position in recent months by
promoting multilateral organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the
Collective Security Treaty Organization. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
"The Kremlin is very seriously concerned about its ability to
control its entire territory, especially on the southern borders," Zlobin said.
"If the United States is leaving Central Asia – and it looks like it is leaving –
Russia will take its place, because it can."
Zlobin said that although Russia’s security treaties with Central
Asian nations focus on the use of military bases, they are just as much a political
statement. "The statement is: America won’t be there forever, but Russia will be
there forever."
A sweeping analysis article, published September 29 in the Moscow daily
Nezavisimaya Gazeta said the United States and NATO want to expand their influence in
Central Asia because of the "worsening situation in Afghanistan."
"Through NATO, the Americans would like in the future to gradually
take control of the entire military structure in the majority of CIS countries," the
newspaper analysis said. "However, it will require significant investment for
this."
The newspaper went on to say it would be easy for Russia to blunt US
efforts to expand its strategic influence. To do so, Russia should work to boost arms
sales to Central Asian states and expand officer training programs. "The new
pragmatic Russia views the arms business not only as a means of making a profit, but also
of gaining political influence," the newspaper said. It added that the costs for CIS
states in the Caucasus and Central Asia to switch their militaries to NATO standards are
most likely prohibitive.
The newspaper article suggested that the United States was perhaps
overreaching in Central Asia, and thus long-term Russian security interests in the region
were not threatened. "We should not be too fearful," the newspaper said.
At the conference, Haghayeghi expressed particular concern about the
near-term impact of US strategic cooperation with Uzbekistan. He argued that the US
military presence in Uzbekistan, which both Haghayeghi and Pentagon officials in the
audience believed would continue for some time, has emboldened Uzbek President Islam
Karimov. "The American strategic partnership with Uzbekistan has led Uzbekistan to
pursue its own interests, without concern for others," Haghayeghi said. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Peter Sinnott, a professor of international affairs at Columbia
University’s School of International and Public Affairs, argued that regional
governments also share the blame for existing regional instability. He noted that some of
the conditions that rendered Afghanistan a failed state now exist in the five Central
Asian republics. "The capitals are disconnected from the rural areas. State
legitimacy hardly reaches rural areas, especially in Uzbekistan," Sinnott said.
"Local militias extract goods from the public without providing security."
Central Asian leaders have exploited the great power jockeying to
solidify their own holds on power, and dim hopes for civil society development in the
region. Zlobin said President Askar Akayev in Kyrgyzstan was astute to agree to host both
a US and Russian military base. "Akayev is playing both sides, which is great for
him," Zlobin said. "With bases from both countries in Kyrgyzstan, who is going
to accuse him of human rights abuses?"
EurasiaNet, October 1, 2003
http://www.eurasianet.org/ |