Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ speech at an Asian security meeting in June, sponsored by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, brought the US dilemma into sharper focus. Gates listed a wide array of assistance needs for Central Asian states and Afghanistan, including money to promote regional integration, as well as to fund counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics programs. At the same time, he made it clear that the United States could not go on bearing the brunt of the assistances burden. "At this point I would like to challenge our allies, friends, and partners in the region to do more to help Central Asia," Gates said.
A EurasiaNet Commentary by Stephen Blank
While the Bush administration retains a desire to remain strongly engaged in Central Asia, it is contending with tightening budget constraints. Indeed, the signs are multiplying that Washington will be reducing its financial commitment to the region in the coming months and years.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ speech at an Asian security meeting in June, sponsored by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, brought the US dilemma into sharper focus. Gates listed a wide array of assistance needs for Central Asian states and Afghanistan, including money to promote regional integration, as well as to fund counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics programs. At the same time, he made it clear that the United States could not go on bearing the brunt of the assistances burden. "At this point I would like to challenge our allies, friends, and partners in the region to do more to help Central Asia," Gates said.
For at least the last two years, US officials have tried to get Asian nations interested in making a greater financial commitment to stabilization in Central Asia and Afghanistan. But US efforts in this area have become entangled in geopolitics. For example, American diplomats devoted considerable attention to India, striving to raise New Delhi’s profile in Central Asia. But US efforts were largely blunted by a simultaneous diplomatic push by Washington’s chief rivals in the region, China and Russia. As a result, India has not been the type of player in Central Asia that the United States had hoped for.
Perhaps the clearest indicator that the United States will be scaling back its financial involvement in Central Asia was offered by US Ambassador to Kazakhstan John Ordway. At a February news conference in Astana, Ordway said that funding for democratization projects in Kazakhstan, and other Central Asian nations, would likely be scaled back.
"Our assistance programs in Central Asia in general are going to over the next few years have fewer financial resources. This has to do with a more difficult budget environment in Washington and very tough competition among a lot of high priority claimants on our foreign assistance resources, including Central Asia, which is a priority," Ordway said.
"The development of democratic institutions in civil society, including free competitive media, is and will remain an important goal, and we will have some resources to pursue those aims," Ordway continued. "There is no … intention on our part to diminish the priority we place in this area in the budget decisions that have to be made in a very difficult financial climate."
Although Ordway did not mention specific reasons for the changing fiscal climate, observers believe that the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are forcing American policy makers to cut back in other areas.
Many regional experts believe that cutbacks will have the most severe impact on Washington’s relationship with Kyrgyzstan. Even setting aside the matter of the future American assistance level, US-Kyrgyz ties are growing increasingly strained. A highly regarded Kyrgyz pundit, Valentin Bogatyrev, has observed that America’s position in Kyrgyzstan is weakening for a variety of reasons, including the Iraq war, the failed US relationship with Uzbekistan, and aggressive economic policies pursued by China and Russia. In addition, incidents like the shooting of a Kyrgyz man outside the US air base at Manas in late 2006 have helped stoke anti-American feelings.
Similarly, Leonid Bondarets, a Kyrgyz military expert, has argued that America’s military presence in Kyrgyzstan actually increases the chances that the Central Asian nation might become the target of a terrorist act. Apart from all the foregoing issues cited above, Kyrgyz analysts also cite a lack of mutual understanding on both sides.
The recent visits by Gates and Boucher to Bishkek must be viewed in the context of damage control in US-Kyrgyz relations. Boucher called on Kyrgyzstan not to raise the Manas Base issue during an upcoming meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, to be held in Bishkek. Gates, meanwhile, discussed "a very broad range of issues relating to military and non-military cooperation."
Judging by the Kyrgyz media reaction to the visits, Bishkek does not seem automatically inclined to honor US wishes. Local analysts stressed the Manas base issue is under comprehensive "academic" review by Tashmnabet Kensariyev, Deputy Director of the President’s International Strategic Studies Institute.
US energy investments may go forward, even aggressively, in and around the Caspian Basin. But a one-legged and private development policy cannot compete for influence with Russia and China’s comprehensive and strategic regional approaches. Neither can it promote liberalization either in politics or economics, not to mention any serious or sustained policy towards Washington’s professed goal of democratization. If the Bush administration is actually intent on reducing its outlays in Central Asia, then it will also scale back its objectives. One cannot cover all bets with a declining stack of chips.
Editor’s Note: Stephen Blank is a professor at the US Army War College. The views expressed this article do not in any way represent the views of the US Army, Defense Department or the US Government.
