The West’s interest in Kazakhstan is usually slaked in three ways. First are the sporadic news stories, depicting it as a wicked mixture of oil, autocracy and corruption. Second one is made of picturesque and obviously expensive ads supplements to the leading American newspapers, paid by the Kazakh taxpayers. Reality is totally different there – democracy, growth and prosperity. The third source is represented by publications of the think-tanks and individual researchers. They rarely reach wider audience, but it’s even worse when some of they do.

Ariel Cohen, a well-known expert in Eurasian politics, frequently publishes his opinion articles in the top U.S. newspapers, denouncing autocratic rollback in Russia and Central Asian “Stans”, except Kazakhstan. This country is a Dr. Cohen’s favorite. Speaking about it, he omits critical evaluation of the facts, highlighting only positive things – even if negativity seriously tips the scale – and later broadcasts his vision on behalf of the Heritage Foundation.

There are several things that can be easily traced from one his publication to another – not even much paraphrased: oil-driven economic boom (not a word about threats of “Dutch Disease” and widening wealth gap), 3,000 students being sent abroad each year (whereas domestic universities are looted by corruption and brain-drain) and interethnic tolerance (although failures in ensuring social justice and rule of law already cause ethnic clashes in this historically tolerant society).

Yes, Kazakhstan sent soldiers to Iraq when President Bush needed allies. But Astana remains under severe influence of Kremlin. It is a core member of the anti-U.S. Shanghai Cooperation Organization and wants to diminish the OSCE’s human dimension. Yes, Kazakhstan will have lots of oil soon. But politically it prefers to export it through Russia. The recent constitutional amendments raised many eyebrows, but Dr. Cohen is very positive about them, explaining his optimism in sweet harmony with the Kazakh propaganda.
(more…)

How serious is the Islamist threat in Central Asia? What is the future of Russian influence in the region? Is a regime change in Uzbekistan imminent? Whither Kyrgyzstan? Dr. Eric McGlinchey recently sat down with neweurasia to offer his expertise on all these questions and more.

McGlinchey is an Assistant Professor of Politics and Government at George Mason University, a member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Program on New Approaches to Russian Security, and is an advisor to the Eurasia Program at the National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR). He is among the first of a new generation of scholars offering policymakers a fresh perspective on Central Asian affairs. (neweurasia has covered several of his presentations.) His research focuses on Islam and social mobilization, information communication technology, and authoritarianism in Central Asia.
(more…)

Welcome to another roundup of military and security news from Central Asia. We’ll begin with the military expansion of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), comprised of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, which plans to increase the size of the Central Asia-based Collective Rapid Reaction Force. The CSTO has also recently held security discussions with Afghanistan, and plans to build an air-defence network to cover the member states. For the moment, however, it appears that Iran is unlikely to join.

The US Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan has recently had to deny that the US plans to use Manas air force base in any possible attack on Iran. The base is particularly controversial as the US has refused to give up the American airman responsible for the shooting of a Kyrgyz citizen at the base gates in December. The shooting is one of a number of recent incidents which have fed into a growing anti-Western mood in Kyrgyzstan. The recent request for Russian help in guarding Kyrgyz borders may be an indication of a Kyrgzstan’s future strategic orientation.

In Uzbekistan, officials with backgrounds in security and law enforcement are increasingly coming to dominate the government. The regime has also used terrorism and smuggling as reasons to establish buffer zones along Uzbekistan’s borders, particulalry in the Fergana valley. In a more puzzling development, the ex-head of Uzbek army intelligence has been sentenced to 20 years in jail for passing secrets to Russia.

Meanwhile, Kazakhstan’s new military doctrine has been published, setting out its ‘multi-vectored’ strategy. There’s more analysis of the Kazakhstan’s strategic balancing act between the West, Russia and China here.

There appears to be little sign of the post-Turkmenbashi thaw in Turkmenistan, as the security services are putting even more pressure on the the few remaining NGOs. This comes despite the sacking of the head of the presidential security service, who was one of the most powerful figures of the former regime. On the foreign policy front, President Berdymukhammedov has signalled a possible end to the Turkmenistan’s self-imposed isolation, and is reaching out to Russia, the US, and regional neighbours.

The Tajik foreign minister has again stated his country’s strategic partnership with Russia, while seeking closer ties with China, the EU and US, particulary over security matters. Internally, the Tajik government has been clamping down on conservative Muslims, who it accuses of ‘extremism’. Three Tajik men were sentenced last month to 19 years in jail for their membership of the IMU, while an Iranian citizen has been arrested in Dushanbe, accused of recruiting teenagers to be given terrorist training abroad.

Welcome to another roundup of security and defence news in Central Asia. We’ll begin with a new report on military spending, which have increased massively across the region compared to last year. Kazakhstan leads as the biggest spender, with a defence budget of $1.2 billion for 2007, almost double that of 2006. Uzbekistan is close behind on $902.4 million, and Turkmenistan has received almost $500 million in weapons purchases and upgrades from the Ukraine in exchange for gas. Tajikistan and Kyrgzstan are still heavily reliant on Russian forces for security, and hence their defence budgets are minimal in comparison.

Is the Fergana Valley still playing host to Islamic militant groups? IWPR gives an in-depth look into the question. Meanwhile, a weapons bunker believed to have been used by the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan has been uncovered in the Tajik part of the Fergana.

China certainly seems convinced of the threat, and has recently stepped up security on its borders with Kyrgzstan and Tajikistan, claiming that ‘international terrorists’ have been infiltrating Xinjiang. This follows the raid in early January on what China claims was a East Turkestan Islamic Movement training camp, in which 18 Uygurs were killed. Der Spiegel has more on the Chinese government’s strategy for Xinjiang, which mixes rapid economic development with a crackdown on Uygur separatists.

In Kyrgyzstan, the US has given a long-term commitment to Manas air force base, which it says will be needed as long as operations in Afghanistan continue. The Kyrgyz government currently receives $17.4 million a year for the rent of the base, although President Bakiev had apparently asked for $200 million.

The security implications of the death of the Turkmenbashi and the rise of Gurbanguly Berdimukhamedov to the Turkmen Presidency are not yet clear, although it appears the policy of neutrality will be maintained. EurasiaNet reports that Russian officials have moved quickly to ensure that Turkmenistan’s energy policies will remain orientated towards Russia.

Russia has also been working on its relations with Kazakhstan. The Kazakh government plans to totally modernise and restructure its armed forces by 2015, and will be relying heavily on Russian equipment and expertise to do so. Kazakhstan has also been maintaining friendly, if much more distant, relations with NATO.

Tajikistan has also been reaching out abroad, signing a new treaty with China with important economic and security implications. In addition, President Rakhmonov’s recent Middle Eastern tour marks Tajikistan’s efforts to secure closer relations with the Arab world. Security cooperation with NATO nations is being maintained, however, as shown the presence of French forces at Dushanbe airport, and a continuing series of military exchanges with the US, such as this Virginia National Guard training mission. Meanwhile, the difficult job of clearing mines left from the civil war continues.

A recent RAND study highlights one of the chief dilemmas of Western policy in Central Asia - to what extent does security assistance to developing countries bring positive change? Uzbekistan is singled out as an example of US-provided legal and police training proving ineffective at improving the human rights situation. Having since turned away from the US, Uzbekistan’s relations with Russia are now closer that ever, as demonstrated by a new deal giving Russia basing rights at Navoi air force base.

As Registan.net draws attention to an article in the euobserver, it seems Central Asia is rather high on the agenda of the EU. There is just a problem: We do not hear anything about it.

Central Asia has been mentioned in a couple of corners of the Internet. Let’s start with the website of the EU itself. The starting point should be the website of the Directorat General for Foreign Relations on Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

To my knowledge the latest info that can be found on strategy concerning Central Asia is for the time between 2000 and 2006. Not too exciting and rather general.

The next point I turned to is the work program of the German EU-presidency from January until end June 2007. In there, Central Asia is mentioned on page 5 around three times, still in very general terms.

Where to turn next? The German Foreign Office actually has some more detailed information on the plans concerning Central Asia during the next few months. Those who don’t speak German will be disappointed but I would like to give you a short outline (latest update 12/01/07):

• Relevance of Central Asia for Europe and Germany: Central Asia has strategic relevance for Germany and Europe. This is mainly connected to its location (Afghanistan, continental transport) and issues that are quite common in that region (drug trafficking, so-called terrorism).
• Objectives of the EU in Central Asia: Again stability and security is mentioned as the main priority. This concerns the borders but also resources, and not only oil and gas but also water. The policies concerned are energy (anyone surprised?).
• EU Central Asia strategy: Relating to existing initiatives in Central Asia the article admits that there is no coherent strategy for the region but that there must be one to meet the demands of the diversity of the region. In connection with the relations to Russia, the EU should include this part of the post-USSR region into its strategy.

The article closes with the aim to have a draft strategy ready by June 2007.

What is missing
After reading this article and the other bits from the net there are a couple of questions that should come to the mind: Aren’t some aspects missing? What about support for human rights, building of capacity and good governance as well as more democratic structures? Wasn’t there something to it in the last 6 years, when the EU invested into the building of institutions through the cooperation of civil society and the government? And also the aspect of poverty reduction, which had quite a prominent position in the last strategy of the EU, was not mentioned.

Altogether it is disappointing to think about the EU strategy in Central Asia for now. A link that could be slightly recommended is the website of the Europa House in Uzbekistan and there the page with links for further readings on civil society. It is well sorted and has links to articles going a little deeper in what the EU could do in Central Asia, which doesn’t mean that it will.