Recently a number of both Russian and US media reported that the Pentagon was planning to open another US military base in Kyrgyzstan. According to The Washington post reports, that facility will be set up in the south of the country, near the town of Osh. However, Kyrgyz authorities immediately denied the reports. As Farid Niyazov, head of the Kyrgyz Presidential Administration Informational Coordination Center, put it, «All issues regarding a further stay of the American or other countries’ military contingents in Kyrgyzstan will be settled by our new parliament to be elected on October 10th, 2010».
During the past three months several high-ranking emissaries of the US State Department and Pentagon visited Bishkek, the latest visitor being Johnson, Assistant Secretary of State. Their negotiations with the Kyrgyz temporary government touched upon the necessity to step up security in the region. So far those negotiations boil down to getting Bishkek guarantees for a further unimpeded functioning of the US Air Force Transit Center at Manas.
All this proves that the Central Asian region continues to occupy an important place in the US policies. However, in the beginning Washington did not pay any attention to that region as it is geographically isolated, is too distant from the US, and has no access to the open sea. The US Administration focused its attention on Central Asia (CA) only after the September 11th terrorist acts, when a decision was made to launch an anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan. After that the Americans started forming a military strategic foothold in the region. However, the pushiness of the Americans, their hastiness in accomplishing purposes resulted in a number of grave mistakes. The main mistake was boosting democratization processes in Central Asian countries and creating conditions for color revolutions there, so that their political systems resemble the Western pattern. But the events in Kyrgyzstan in 2005 and 2010 demonstrated that the Western democracy pattern was unacceptable for the region. One corrupt clannish power was replaced with another even more corrupt clannish regime in Kyrgyzstan.
Due to the interference of Washington in Central Asian affaires leaders of Central Asian states suspected the US of aggressive plans. That made it possible for Russia and China to jointly build up a powerful political potential in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and set up an efficient opposition to the American strategy in the area.
In the document entitled ’The Report on National Security for 2006′ CA was dubbed as the region ’still remaining a priority region for the US foreign policy’. Ariel Cohen, expert of the Heritage Foundation in charge of CA and Caspian problems, summed up US strategic objectives in CA with three basic terms, namely security, energy resources, and democracy.
At the same time US experts realized that it was impossible to simultaneously achieve the above strategic goals (by the way that was not needed at all). So, they focused on the priority rate of the goals and missions. During that discussion several approaches to the formation of Washington’s policies in CA were identified, including:
— a balanced strengthening of the US positions
— the priority of democratic development
— the priority of security maintenance.
Estimating the balance of opinions of proponents of this or that concept in the US expert community, it is worth noting that currently the situation favors security principle supporters. They admit the importance of democratic reforms in the Central Asian region and, consequently, its greater stability, for implementing American programs; however, they do not believe that the US must focus its major efforts and resources in that direction. On the contrary, they call upon the American authorities to downgrade their rhetoric of democracy, to try to realize the situation in the countries of the region, and start supporting their fight against terrorism. Partisans of the security principle insist that US persistent efforts to promote Western liberal values in the region only increase regional leaders’ determination to keep their own positions by all means and step up their cooperation with Russia and China as a counterbalance to the US growing influence.
That will inevitably lead to decreasing the influence of Western-oriented political parties and non-government organizations that get financial support from the West in Central Asian countries. Basically, the US vast geographical distance seriously interferes with Washington’s intention to control the political situation in Central Asian countries, while Russia and China bordering those countries use powerful tools for their political, economic and military-technological cooperation there.
Due to the above factors, the US Administration’s policy in CA is very pragmatic. According to the RAND Corporation research, it focuses on the military-political methods for implementing missions, such as:
— the formation of an infrastructure of US military bases in the Middle East and Central Asia and keeping it in immediate operational readiness, so that the US could rapidly increase its military presence in CA, if necessary;
— elaborating forms and methods of operational coordination between the military commands of the US, on the one hand, and partner countries’ armies, on the other under a possible aggravation of the military-political situation in a member country;
— forming partnership relations and military-technical cooperation between the military commands of the US, on the one hand, and CA partner countries, on the other.
As a practical step in that direction, the Pentagon intends to locate in Central Asian countries its Special Operations units under the pretext of fighting terrorism. Last autumn Kuebler, a media relations officer with the US Special Operations Command, told that piece of news to journalists. Five countries were cited as the countries where Washington was planning to deploy its troops, namely Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.
It is expected the 3rd Special Operation Group based in Fort Bragg (North Carolina) will implement that mission. Since 2002 that Group has been participating in military operations in Afghanistan. Currently the 3rd Group consists of four battalions that would replace each other in CA simultaneously with the rotation of US forces in Afghanistan.
In CA the 3rd Group will tackle the mission of combat readiness preparation of the national armies, and of ensuring internal order and safety in the countries of the region. However, both the professional military training and operational records of the US Special Forces speak for themselves. It is clear that the main objective of their deployment in CA is not the above tasks, but increasing US military-political influence in the region, which would pose a threat to Russia’s national security.
Another step for expanding the US military presence in CA is the US plan for its military aviation practicing flights to Afghanistan via the North Pole and Kazakhstan. Reportedly, the US expects the Alma-Ata airport will offer an emergency landing ground for US military aircraft. From the security point, the Northern route of the US military aviation poses a potential threat to both Russia and China, as it would make it possible for the US military force to conduct air surveillance of the two countries’ territories, specifically, to monitor the shooting grounds located in Kazakhstan and Western China. Additionally, if the US decides to deliver an attack against Russia’s military-industrial facilities from the US Arctic corridors, the US military aviation will be able to launch its winged rockets against targets in the Urals, Western Siberia, Kazakhstan and China.
Will Washington succeed in implementing its plans for creating a zone of its military-political and economical influence in CA? It depends greatly on Russia that has at its disposal such powerful instruments of regional politics and integration as SCO and CSTO.
Vladimir Vasilievich Karyakin — Senior Research Associate of the Russian Strategic Research Institute, PhD in Military Sciences
