European Tribune

Central Asia straying from the path of righteousness

by Richard Lyon
Wed Aug 16th, 2006 at 10:39:12 PM EST

An interesting article in The New York Times about the changing political winds in Central Asia.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/world/asia/16kyrgyzstan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


KARA-SUU, Kyrgyzstan -- A series of recent incidents, including the killing last week of a popular religious leader by government security forces in this restive southern border town, has many here calling into question the pro-Western orientation of Kyrgyzstan.

Expectations that the Central Asian nation would lead its neighbors toward a pro-Western -- and especially pro-American -- alignment crested after it ousted its president in March 2005. The so-called Tulip Revolution was part of a wave of "colored revolutions" that overthrew leaders aligned with Russia in Georgia and Ukraine and swept into power pro-Western administrations.

But in July, Kyrgyzstan expelled two American envoys, the first expulsion of American diplomats from any Central Asian country. The United States responded by ejecting two Kyrgyz diplomats.

Last week, the Kyrgyz government repatriated five Uzbeks with United Nations-sanctioned refugee status whom Uzbekistan's authoritarian government wanted to try in connection with an uprising last year in the Uzbek city of Andijon, in which hundreds of people were killed by government security forces. The decision was denounced by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as a "shocking" violation of Kyrgyzstan's international commitments.

On Aug. 6, Kyrgyz and Uzbek security forces killed an outspoken imam, Rafiq Qori Kamalov, in his car as he drove down a street in the city of Osh, near the Uzbek border. He and two people with him were accused by the government of being members of a shadowy British-based organization called Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is banned by most Central Asian countries. The organization advocates a caliphate, or a unified Islamic government, over all of Central Asia, but says it is nonviolent.

A government spokesman, acknowledging the killings, said munitions and a map scrawled with the word "jihad" were found in the vehicle.

To experts on the region, the events seemed to be part of a deliberate policy shift by the Kyrgyz government.

Traditionally, small Central Asian nations like Kyrgyzstan have tended to balance binational relationships rather than cast their lot with one nation over another. But increasingly, say Western diplomats and political analysts here, Kyrgyzstan seems to be embracing Russia and Uzbekistan at the expense of its relationship with the United States.

"The Kyrgyz aren't acting in as haphazard a way as it looks," said Michael Hall, Central Asia project director for the International Crisis Group, an independent policy analysis group. "Given the demands and conditions from the United States, the Kyrgyz are simply thinking it is more in their interest to play along with Russia and Uzbekistan, neighbors that can make life difficult for Kyrgyzstan in the long term."

Here in this border area dominated by ethnic Uzbeks, anti-government hostility runs deep, and a traditional, politically engaged Islam is an increasingly powerful force. But elsewhere in the country, admiration for the government of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev seems to be growing, while the American presence continues to dim.

"There's unhappiness with the economic situation, especially in the south," said a political analyst with a Western-backed civil society organization. "But while the Kyrgyz may want a government that is more progressive and is doing more, things are also stable and people seem to have accepted by and large that Bakiyev is in charge." The analyst asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the news media.

Like its Central Asian neighbors, Kyrgyzstan is a country with a Sunni Muslim majority whose government discourages religious fervor and has a history of clamping down on organizations that espouse a mixing of politics and Islam.

Kyrgyzstan has been hesitant in the past to collaborate with Uzbekistan, which has shown little regard for human rights in its pursuit of what it labels Muslim militants. "What's new this week is the cooperation between the Kyrgyz and Uzbek security forces," said the political analyst.

The Persian Gulf is the obvious battle ground over oil and power. However there is another important struggle to the north that touches on the borders of Russia and China. The republics of Central Asia are among the most remote and unfamiliar places on earth. However, they are becoming important pieces on the chess board.


Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
collapsed Middle east policies, so China and Russia look stronger especially when they are close neighbors.
by observer393 on Thu Aug 17th, 2006 at 01:30:18 AM EST
Trade with US is close to zero for those countries, and population is not sympathetic with Bush's war on Islam:

Kyrgyz rights activist says no to U.S. forum over Bush "insult"


BISHKEK, August 16 (RIA Novosti) - Kyrgyzstan's human rights ombudsman said Wednesday he had turned down an invitation to attend a conference in the United States because of what he termed offensive remarks made by President George Bush.

On August 10, the U.S. leader blamed "Islamic fascists" for a plot foiled in London to perpetrate a series of terrorist acts on board U.S.-bound airliners. American Muslim groups have also criticized Bush for his comments.

"He [Bush] enriched his lexicon with a new expression: 'Islamic fascism'," Bakir-uulu told a news conference. "This insult means I, as a national of a country where different religious movements including Islam peacefully co-exist, cannot attend the September conference of U.S. human rights advocates."

The ombudsman in the Central Asian state, where about 75% of the population practice Islam, said Bush had offended Muslims from all over the world.

by blackhawk on Thu Aug 17th, 2006 at 04:01:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My impression is that the US is not so much interested in trading with these countries as in trying to control their trade with other people. The Caspian basin is a developing source of oil and gas. It takes pipelines to get it out of there. The US has been attempting to encourage arrangements that bypass Russia.
by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Thu Aug 17th, 2006 at 08:26:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's exactly the problem. Meager economic return is coming with lots of strings attached, including loss of polical independence, military bases, loss of oil and gas revenue.

And the end result is that the only currently existing US-approved (i.e., bypassing Russia and China) BTC oil pipeline is not economically viable in the current form: it turns out that Caspian reserves were overhyped and Azeri oil is not enough to fill it.

Still US is pushing at political level for countries in the region to pickup the tab for this geopolitical fantasy. No wonder that countries in the region do not want to play the game.

by blackhawk on Thu Aug 17th, 2006 at 09:25:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
good ole dubya, up to his uniting tricks again...

Peace is not the absence of war -- peace is the absence of fear. Ursula Franklin
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Aug 18th, 2006 at 01:00:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Once more my US policy proposal stands: Get off the oil, and get away from the bad guys.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?
by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Thu Aug 17th, 2006 at 10:33:24 AM EST
As I see it, these policies can be linked directly back to Truman and Acheson with not real deviation from then until now. Ok, Jimmy did sit there looking confused for four years. They are deeply embedded into the structure of the American economic and political agenda. It is highly unlike that they will change in the foreseeable future.
by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Thu Aug 17th, 2006 at 10:41:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jimmy -- I assume you're talking about Carter -- was the only president with the intelligence and courage to solve this problem.  America would look very different today if we had followed Carter's proposed path.  A majority of American voters simply failed to listen and, instead, voted in an airhead, B-movie actor.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?
by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Thu Aug 17th, 2006 at 11:01:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The economy imploded on Carter. His National Security advisor Brzezinski has claimed that US support for the Afghan Muyahedeen started before the Soviet invasion as a way to draw the Soviets into a war. Then there is the little issue of the Iran hostage crisis. I wonder whether a second Carter term would have looked very different from Reagan's first, foreign-policy-wise

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 17th, 2006 at 11:16:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It depends on which area of foreign policy we discuss.  Personally -- and, as always (and to be fair), hindsight is 20/20 -- I look at the Cold War and see it as having been a waste of time, lives and money.  America never should have been concerned about the Soviet economy overpowering the American economy.  That race was over before it even began.  The collapse of the command economy was simply a question of "When?" in my opinion.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?
by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Thu Aug 17th, 2006 at 11:36:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I've done a lot of reading trying to figure out if the cold war was "avoidable". One factor that is over looked is the role of the British, particularly Bevin, played in trying to pull the US into it. I have never formed a hard and fast conclusion about it all.

I think that the real issues at the time were much more political and military than economic. All the spin about the evils of communism was mostly propaganda for the masses. The US was king of the economic hill at the end of WWII and everybody knew it.

I think that Stalin could not be entirely ignored in Europe. The biggest mistake that I think the US made in the late 40's was to let its policy in Asia be totally driven by its objectives in Europe. The realities there were considerablly different and they, particularly Acheson, failed to see that.

Once the cold war got going, everyone was locked into it. With the fall of the USSR, the US theoretically had the option to revise the basic assumptions of its foreign policy. The fact that it did not happen in even the slightest degree, leads me to conclude that it's not going to happen, regardless of who is in the White House.

by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Thu Aug 17th, 2006 at 11:55:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jimmy and Roselyn would be lovely people to have for next door neighbors. Carter is an intelligent man with strong personal integrity. He has used that well in his role as an elder statesman. However, his skills as a political leader don't stand up well. He was particularly ineffective at being able to make his objectives happen, either great or small.

I have often thought that if it were possible to combine Carter's integrity with Clinton's political skills you would likely have an outstanding leader. On their own, both have serious deficiencies.

by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Thu Aug 17th, 2006 at 11:31:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]