COMMENTARY: US-Central Asia talks only a small part of complex regional picture

This is a commentary prepared by the editorial team of commonspace.eu

US Secretary of State John Kerry invited the foreign ministers of Central Asia’s five ‘Stans’ to Washington on Wednesday for a high level summit, but the US faces an uphill struggle deepening ties in the region. Central Asia is still in the orbit of Moscow and increasingly Beijing, and is facing the twin threats of economic stangation and violent extremism.

Kerry pledged cash to boost clean energy projects, and deepen security and economic ties with the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan at the second meeting of the group dubbed the “C5+1”.

“The group [...] agreed to launch five joint projects that were developed by the C5+1 working groups that met after the first ministerial in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, which was last November 2015,” said Mark Toner, Kerry’s spokesman. “The United States is excited to be continuing the C5+1 format as we broaden and deepen our relationship with the Central Asian states.”

However the US will not find it easy to define a role in the region. Although the Soviet Union is a quarter-century dead, Russia is still the predominant power. The Russian language is the regional lingua franca, and many in the Stans consume solely Russian media.

Kazakhstan and Kyrgzstan belong to the Eurasian Economic Union, Moscow’s answer to the EU and NATO. Russia has major military bases in the region, as well as significant control over natural resources.

China is rapidly growing as a regional power on the back of its astonishing economic expansion over the past two decades. All five Stans bar Turkmenistan belong to the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, a counterbalance to the EEU, while the region is being changed rapidly by trade and investment funnelled through China’s ambitious ‘One Belt, One Road’ policy. 

Democracy and human rights, ostensibly among the US’s foreign policy priorities, have been thin on the ground since the five Stans gained independence in 1991. While America played a role in funding and abetting the democratic transition of the 1990s, its approach was largely supperficial, and after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 US policy towards the region narrowed to security concerns, particularly related to neighbouring Afghanistan. 

Only Kyrgyzstan resembles a democracy at present. President Almazbek Atambayev has pursued close ties with to Russia – the US military base at Manas was closed down in 2014 under Russian influence – but he has repeatedly pledged to stand down when his term expires next year. However the country is still seething with discontent after revolutions in 2005 and 2010.

The other four Stans have not developed democratic norms at all. Both Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbayev and his Uzbek counterpart Islam Karidov served as the last First Secretary of the Communist Party in their republic, before becoming the first, and so-far only, president of the modern nation state. Emomali Rahmon of Tajikistan has been in power for nearly as long, while Turkmenistan’s president Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov presides over a personality cult.

The leaders of the five Stans feel threatened from three different directions, meaning the region is higher than ever before on the United States’ concerns. 

Firstly, they are threatened by the ongoing distinctive regional politics of clientelism and clans. When the Soviet Union collapsed, local and clan identities predominated over the ethnic and economic divisions that shaped the post-Soviet political scene in other countries.  There was little mobilisation to challenge old elites, and indeed many of the old guard are still in charge .

For instance, in Uzbekistan, President Karimov belongs to the Samarkand clan, while the security services come from the Tashkent clan, resulting in a combustible equilibrium. These clan identities undermine institutions and accountability.  Rulers feel threatened by other clans as well as upstarts within their own clans, sometimes including their own relatives – Karimov imprisoned his own daughter, Gulnara, in 2014 for reasons which are opaque.

In all countries, wealth – there is a huge amount of natural gas and oil in the region – is accrued in the hands of a tiny elite, a formula ripe for volatility. Millions of Central Asians moved to Russia to work in the boom years after the millennium, but many have now returned home to bleak prospects in the past couple of years as the Russian economy has slumped. The economies of the Stans have barely improved since the Soviet collapse, and nostalgia is rife.

The second major threat leaders worry about is the kind of bottom-up ‘colour revolution’ which toppled the governments of Georgia and Ukraine in the mid-2000s. These ruptures were heavily motivated by economic concerns, as well as the perception the ruling elite is out of touch, like the Arab Spring movement which came some years later.

Kyrgyzstan’s 2005 ‘Tulip Revolution’ was thought at the time to be analogous to Georgia’s Rose Revolution and Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, but it did not change the fundamental basis of Kyrgyz politics, with clientelism still predominating. China and Russia are, for obvious reasons, seen as more reliable allies for local elites against this concern than the USA.

All five Stans are highly repressive, with low rankings on Freedom House’s ‘Freedom in the World 2016’ index, with Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan ranking as the third and sixth least free countries in the world. 

This level of repression is also explained by the third major threat facing the region – radical Islam. All five states restrict religious freedoms to varying extents, with Uzbekistan long on the US State Department’s religious freedom ‘country of particular concern’ list, and Turkmenistan and Tajikistan being recent additions.

In Tajikistan the Islamic Renaissance Party was banned last year, and hundreds of its supporters and activists have been persecuted. Some estimate as many as 12,000 have been locked up for their religious views in Uzbekistan. Yet the ideals of religious freedom come up against hard-headed realpolitik, in a region which was used as the US’s launching pad for the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. 

Since the formation of the so-called Islamic State in 2014, the group’s influence in Central Asia has been growing. Worryingly, the group is tailoring its messages to the distinctive local cultures, languages and politics of each country, according to research by Harvard’s Noah Tucker. Thousands from the Stans have joined the Islamic State, and some have featured in viral videos rallying others to action. 

If this flow continues and some fighters start returning home, it could create deep problems for the Central Asian states, as religious persecution and religious extremism feed off each other in a vicious circle.

The Fergana Valley, spanning Uzbekistan, Kyrgzstan and Tajikistan, is frequently cited as a regional tinderbox. Violent unrest in Kyrgyzstan in 2005 and 2010 came out of the valley, with the city of Osh a particular flashpoint, but the problem is not just there. Islamist militants killed six in June at Aktobe in northwestern Kazakhstan, close to the Russian border.

The United States’s deepening ties in Central Asia are welcome, but in reality are just a drop in a complex and volatile ocean. A multitude of forces are at work pulling the region in different directions – resource wealth, Chinese and Russian foreign policy, American counterterrorism, economic stagnation, Islamic extremism, clan divisions – and any could trigger a sudden change in the rules of the Great Game. In some ways the C5 + 1 initiative is a recognition on the part of the United States that it understands the limits of its influence in the region, although it is also a statement that the American government is not ready to have no influence at all in such a strategically important part of the world. It is also a message to Central Asians that when they are ready for change, the US will be there for them. That moment may yet be much closer than most think.

Commentary prepared by the editorial team at Commonspace.eu

PHOTO: John Kerry with the foreign ministers of the five Central Asian countries, after their meeting in Washington on 3 August (picture courtesy of the US State Department).

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)