Challenges for Democratization in Central Asia: What Can the US Do
Pinar Ipek
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
AI
AI
This article examines the challenges to democratization in Central Asia, especially in the context of the U.S. foreign policy post-September 11, 2001. It discusses internal and external factors influencing democracy in the region, emphasizing the importance of civil society development rather than solely prioritizing strategic interests. The paper advocates for a comprehensive U.S. policy that promotes long-term democratic processes.
Related papers
GROWING U.S. SECURITY INTERESTS IN CENTRAL ASIA
SSI Publications, 2002
The author argues that by placing a priority on anti-terrorism in U.S. policy toward Central Asia and rewarding Central Asian leaders for basing rights, the Bush administration is shoring up authoritarian regimes and encouraging public distrust of U.S. intentions in the region. She points out that weak regional security organizations, contingent support in Russia and China to the expanding American military foothold in the region, and instability in Central Asia will pose considerable challenges for the U.S.military. In conclusion, the author recommends an emphasis on rapid deployment from existing bases in Turkey rather than continued basing in Central Asia, a more coherent regional strategy and improved foreign area expertise for the Central Asian region, and a multilateral approach to addressing instability in the area.
STRATEGIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE IRAQ WAR: U.S. SECURITY INTERESTS IN CENTRAL ASIA REASSESSED
SSI Publications, 2004
In this monograph, Elizabeth Wishnick builds on the analysis in her 2002 SSI study, Growing U.S. Security Interests in Central Asia. She contends that by highlighting antiterrorism, the United States addresses a symptom rather than the causes of instability in Central Asia; thus it is contributing to the radicalization of political opposition movements and discrediting both democratization and the U.S. commitment to it. Instead, she argues, the United States should do more to address the underlying human security problems in Central Asia, which increase its vulnerability to terrorist movements.
Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests
2011
U.S. policy toward the Central Asian states has aimed at facilitating their cooperation with U.S. and NATO stabilization efforts in Afghanistan and their efforts to combat terrorism, proliferation, and trafficking in arms, drugs, and persons. Other U.S. objectives have included promoting free markets, democratization, human rights, energy development, and the forging of East-West and Central Asia-South Asia trade links. Such policies aim to help the states become what various U.S. administrations have considered to be responsible members of the international community rather than to degenerate into xenophobic, extremist, and anti-Western regimes that contribute to wider regional conflict and instability. Soon after the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, all the Central Asian "front-line" states offered over-flight and other support for coalition anti-terrorism operations in Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan hosted coalition troops and provided access to airbases. In 2003, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan also endorsed coalition military action in Iraq. About two dozen Kazakhstani troops served in Iraq until late 2008. Uzbekistan rescinded U.S. basing rights in 2005 after the United States criticized the reported killing of civilians in the town of Andijon. In early 2009, Kyrgyzstan ordered a U.S. base in that country to close, allegedly because of Russian inducements and U.S. reluctance to meet Kyrgyz requests for greatly increased lease payments. An agreement on continued U.S. use of the Manas Transit Center was reached in June 2009. In 2009, most of the regional states also agreed to become part of a Northern Distribution Network for the transport of U.S. and NATO supplies to Afghanistan. The status of the Manas Transit Center was in doubt after an April 2010 coup in Kyrgyzstan, but the new leadership soon stated that the Manas Transit Center arrangement would remain in place. Policymakers have tailored U.S. policy in Central Asia to the varying characteristics of these states. U.S. interests in Kazakhstan have included securing and eliminating Soviet-era nuclear and biological weapons materials and facilities. U.S. energy firms have invested in oil and natural gas development in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, and successive administrations have backed diverse export routes to the West for these resources. U.S. policy toward Kyrgyzstan has long included support for its civil society. In Tajikistan, the United States pledged to assist in its economic reconstruction following that country's 1992-1997 civil war. U.S. relations with Uzbekistan-the most populous state in the heart of the region-were cool after 2005, but recently have improved. Since the 2008 global economic downturn, more U.S. humanitarian, health, and education assistance has been provided to hard-struck Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Congress has been at the forefront in advocating increased U.S. ties with Central Asia, and in providing backing for the region for the transit of equipment and supplies for U.S.-led stabilization efforts in Afghanistan. Congress has pursued these goals through hearings and legislation on humanitarian, economic, and democratization assistance, security issues, and human rights. During the first session, the 112 th Congress may review assistance for bolstering regional border and customs controls and other safeguards to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), combating trafficking in persons and drugs, encouraging regional integration with South Asia and Europe, advancing energy security, and countering terrorism. Support for these goals also has been viewed as contributing to stabilization and reconstruction operations by the United States and NATO in Afghanistan. For several years, Congress has placed conditions on assistance to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan-because of concerns about human rights abuses and lagging democratization-which have affected some U.S. security ties. Congress will continue to consider how to balance these varied U.S. interests in the region.
The United States and Central Asia: Strategic Interest and Engagement in the Post-Cold War Era
Malaysian Journal of International Relations, 2014
Central Asia which comprises of five repu lics namely Ka akhstan Kyrgy stan Ta ikistan Turkmenistan and U ekistan were part of the Soviet Central Asia during the Cold ar era and achieved their independence after the disintegration of the Soviet Union in Since then the United States US has started to engage the Central Asian repu lics ilaterally nitially the region did not gain much attention in the US foreign policy as in the early years of post Cold ar era there were other more pressing issues in East Asia and South Asia which dominated the US intention ence the US did not devise any strategy to ensure coherent actions in the region The US engaged Central Asia as part of the former Soviet territory and was mainly concerned on issues related to de nuclearisation and non proliferation energy and democratisation evertheless the region can e considered like a dou le aged sword to the US ecause it poses a range of opportunities as well as challenges for the US oreover Central Asia s oil and gas reserves have made the region very attractive to the US usiness community as an alternative to the iddle East owever since Septem er the strategic interest of the US in the region has increased and this includes initiating strategic partnership with the Central Asian repu lics in its war against terror As such the US needs to re evaluate its previous engagements in Central Asia This study therefore proposes that the US em races a more comprehensive strategy y adopting a multilateral approach towards the region
Central Asia's Security: Issues and Implications for US Interests
2010
The Central Asian states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) face common security challenges from crime, corruption, terrorism, and faltering commitments to economic and democratic reforms. However, cooperation among them remains halting, so security in the region is likely in the near term to vary by country. Kyrgyzstan's and Tajikistan's futures are most clouded by ethnic and territorial tensions, and corruption in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan could spoil benefits from the development of their ample energy resources. Authoritarianism and poverty in Uzbekistan could contribute to a succession crisis. On the other hand, Kyrgyzstan's beleaguered civil society might eventually help the relatively small nation safeguard its independence. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan might become regional powers able to champion policy solutions to common Central Asian problems and to resist undue influence from more powerful outside powers, because of their large territories and populations and energy and other resources. Internal political developments in several bordering or close-by states may have a large impact on Central Asian security. These developments include a more authoritarian and globalist Russia, an economically growing China, instability in Iran and the South Caucasus region, and re-surging drug production and Islamic extremism in Afghanistan. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, the former Bush Administration established bases and other military access in the region to support U.S.-led coalition operations in Afghanistan. The Obama Administration has highlighted U.S. interests in such continued access as well as the long-term security and stability of the region. U.S. interests in Central Asia include combating terrorism, drug production, and trafficking; assisting the development of oil and other resources; and fostering democratization, human rights, free markets, and trade. The United States also seeks to thwart dangers posed to its security by the illicit transfer of strategic missile, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons technologies, materials, and expertise to terrorist states or groups, and to address threats posed to regional independence by Iran. Some critics counter that the United States has historically had few interests in this region, and advocate only limited U.S. contacts undertaken with Turkey and other friends and allies to ensure U.S. goals. They also urge these friends and allies to enhance their energy security by taking the lead in the development of diverse export routes for Central Asia's energy resources. Most in Congress have supported U.S. assistance to bolster independence and reforms in Central Asia. The 106 th Congress authorized a "Silk Road" initiative for greater policy attention and aid for democratization, market reforms, humanitarian needs, conflict resolution, transport infrastructure (including energy pipelines), and border controls. The 108 th and subsequent Congresses have imposed conditions on foreign assistance to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, based on their human rights records. Congress has continued to debate the balance between U.S. security interests in the region and interests in democratization and the protection of human rights.
Challenges and opportunities for the Obama administration in Central Asia
2009
The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Authors of Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) publications enjoy full academic freedom, provided they do not disclose classified information, jeopardize operations security, or misrepresent official U.S. policy. Such academic freedom empowers them to offer new and sometimes controversial perspectives in the interest of furthering debate on key issues. This report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited.
AMERICAN INTERESTS IN CENTRAL ASIAN REGION DURING 2001-2015: AN ANALYTICAL STUDY
After 9/11, the Central Asian region got Geo-strategic and geopolitical attention to the United States of America. Initially, Russia, China, and the leaders of regional states criticized the attacks and welcomed America in the region. The landlocked region has enormous energy resources and its border attached to Afghanistan, China, Russia, and the Caspian Sea. American policymakers gave special importance to this region. So, America established Airbases to fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and invested billions of dollars in different areas. After social revolutions in the region, the leaders of Central Asia states, Russia and China viewed America as a threat. This article examines American interests in the Central Asian region after announcing the war against terrorism and also investigates the strategic importance of the Central Asian region for America.
The Rise and Decline of US Interest and Influence in Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan Journal of International Affairs
The rise of independent Central Asian states after the disintegration of the USSR has transformed the regional geostrategic environment. America quickly established diplomatic relations with the Kyrgyz Republic in 1991. Kyrgyzstan is not a wealthy state and it is facing several challenges such as ethnic issues, bad governance, narcotics, and foreign involvements. After the 9/11 events, the state got special attention for America due to its geographical position towards Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan condemned these attacks and supported to anti-terrorist alliance. It offered military bases for operation in Afghanistan after the relation between America and Kyrgyzstan have strengthened. After the tulip revolution, both states' relationships were affected. This research examines the role of the United States in Kyrgyzstan. It also examines the political, economic, and security relations between the U.S. and Kyrgyzstan. This study evaluates the several challenges tackled by the United Sta...
Central Asia's New States: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests
2005
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States recognized the independence of all the former Central Asian republics, supported their admission into Western organizations, and elicited Turkish support in countering Iranian influence in the region. Congress was at the forefront in urging the formation of coherent U.S. policies for aiding these and other Eurasian states of the former Soviet Union. Soon after the terrorist attacks on America on September 11, 2001, all the Central Asian states offered overflight and other support to coalition anti-terrorist efforts in Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan have hosted coalition troops and provided access to airbases. In 2003, Uzbekistan endorsed coalition military action in Iraq and Kazakhstan provided about two dozen troops for rebuilding. After September 11, 2001, U.S. policy emphasized bolstering the security of the Central Asian states to help them combat terrorism, proliferation, and arms trafficking. Other strategic interests include internal reforms (democratization, free markets, and human rights) and energy development. Administration policy also aims to integrate these states into the international community so that they follow responsible security and other policies, and to discourage the growth of xenophobic, fundamentalist, and anti-Western orientations that threaten peace and stability. The Administration is concerned about human rights and civil liberties problems in all the states. The Administration's policy goals in Central Asia reflect the differing characteristics of these states. U.S. interests in Kazakhstan include the security and elimination of Soviet-era nuclear and biological weapons materials and facilities. In Tajikistan, U.S. aid focuses on economic reconstruction. U.S. energy firms have invested in oil and natural gas development in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Some observers call for different emphases or levels of U.S. involvement in Central Asia. Some have called for strengthening conditions linking aid to progress in improving human rights or in making adequate progress in democratization and the creation of free markets. Some have disputed the importance of energy resources to U.S. national security. Others point to civil and ethnic tensions in the region as possibly endangering U.S. lives and investments. Heightened congressional interest in Central Asia was reflected in passage of "Silk Road" language in late 1999 (P.L. 106-113) authorizing enhanced U.S. policy attention and aid to support conflict amelioration, humanitarian needs, economic development, transport (including energy pipelines) and communications, border controls, democracy, and the creation of civil societies in the South Caucasian and Central Asian states. Consolidated Appropriations for FY2005, including Foreign Operations (P.L. 108-447, signed into law on December 8, 2004) provides $126 million in FREEDOM Support Act assistance to the Central Asian states (as directed by the conferees; H. Rept.108-792), a reduction of $2 million to the budget request. Prior-year provisions are maintained that condition aid to Uzbekistan on its progress in democratization and respecting human rights, and to Kazakhstan on its progress in respecting human rights. For Kazakhstan, a presidential waiver is permitted on national security grounds.
Review: US Foreign Policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia: Politics, Energy, and Security. By Christoph Bluth
With the recent flare up in the intensity of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the ongoing joint Georgia-US military drills and overall NATO-Georgia relationship I found myself going back to the bookshelf for a refresher on some old questions about the region. Particularly, the question of what the foundations were for US policy in the region came to mind. This brought me to Christoph Bluth's US Foreign Policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia: Politics, Energy, and Security. Although a lot has happened in the last couple years, since its publication, it still holds water and in some respects provides new insights because of its date and what has since occurred. It reads as a little dated, concerning Ukraine and Iran in particular, but it would also seems that what Bluth laid out has been consistent with what has happened since publication. He doesn't make predictions per se but the directions things are discussed as moving in are consistent with what has played out. Besides, the past hasn't changed. In using it to get some idea of the foundation of US policy in the region it still remains very useful and totally relevant. Bluth brings up multiple conceptual frameworks, looking in part to Graham Allison, for approaching and understanding US foreign policy in the region. He highlights their strengths and weaknesses while seamlessly keeping it clearly rooted in the subject matter, not allowing it to become an abstract exercise. With this done, Bluth utilizes these frameworks to approach to the subject, laying out multiple considerations to weigh in explaining US policy. Bluth asks:
US Primary Policy Towards Central Asia
Journal of Cultural and Religious Studies
The emergence of the Central Asian republics into the international stage presented a new frontier for US policymakers. US involvement in Central Asia began with the collapse of the USSR. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Washington initiated official relations with the region's newly interdependent states. From 1991 until the mid-1990s, the region to some extent was of only marginal importance to the United States. The region was viewed as less important, perhaps because the highest US priority at that time was Russia itself. US policy in Central Asia, was initially based on the "Russia first" principle. However, later on Washington paid special attention to the region and recognised American national interests there. This paper aims to address this main question: To what extent were US interests affected by independence of the Central Asian republics during the initial phase? The paper findings indicate that during the early stage of US engagement in Central Asia, there was no uniformity and strategic framework in Washington approach toward this region.
The April 2010 Coup in Kyrgyzstan and its Aftermath: Context and Implications for US Interests
2010
Kyrgyzstan is a small and poor country in Central Asia that gained independence in 1991 with the breakup of the Soviet Union (see Figure A-1). It has developed a notable but fragile civil society. Progress in democratization has been set back by problematic elections (one of which helped precipitate a coup in 2005 that brought Kurmanbek Bakiyev to power), contention over constitutions, and corruption. The April 2010 coup appears to have been triggered by popular discontent over rising utility prices and government repression. After two days of popular unrest in the capital of Bishkek and other cities, opposition politicians ousted the Bakiyev administration on April 8 and declared an interim government pending a new presidential election in six months. Roza Otunbayeva, a former foreign minister and ambassador to the United States, was declared the acting prime minister. A referendum on a new constitution establishing a parliamentary form of government is scheduled to be held on June 27, 2010, to be followed by parliamentary elections on October 10, 2010, and a presidential election in December 2011. On the night of June 10-11, 2010, ethnic-based violence escalated in the city of Osh in southern Kyrgyzstan, and over the next few days intensified and spread to other localities. The violence may have resulted in up to a thousand or more deaths and injuries and up to 100,000 or more displaced persons, most of them ethnic Uzbeks who have fled to neighboring Uzbekistan. The United States has been interested in helping Kyrgyzstan to enhance its sovereignty and territorial integrity, increase democratic participation and civil society, bolster economic reform and development, strengthen human rights, prevent weapons proliferation, and more effectively combat transnational terrorism and trafficking in persons and narcotics. The significance of Kyrgyzstan to the United States increased after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. The Kyrgyz government permitted the United States to establish a military base at the Manas international airport outside Bishkek that transships personnel, equipment, and supplies to support U.S. and NATO operations in Afghanistan. The former Bakiyev government had renegotiated a lease on the airbase in June 2009 (it was renamed the Manas Transit Center), in recognition that ongoing instability in Afghanistan jeopardized regional security. Otunbayeva has declared that the interim government will uphold Kyrgyzstan's existing foreign policy, including the presence of the transit center, although some changes to the lease may be sought in the future. She also has launched an investigation of corrupt dealings by the previous government on fuel contracts and other services for the transit center. Cumulative U.S. budgeted assistance to Kyrgyzstan for FY1992-FY2008 was $953.5 million (FREEDOM Support Act and agency funds). Kyrgyzstan ranks third in such aid per capita among the Soviet successor states, indicative of U.S. government and congressional support in the early 1990s for its apparent progress in making reforms and more recently to support anti-terrorism, border protection, and operations in Afghanistan. As Congress and the Administration consider how to assist democratic and economic transformation in Kyrgyzstan, several possible programs have been suggested, including those to buttress civil rights, bolster political institutions and the rule of law, and encourage private sector economic growth. (See also CRS Report RL33458, Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests, by Jim Nichol.
Geopolitical Interests of the United States of America in the Central Asian Republics
Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 2019
The article is devoted to the policy of the United States of America in Central Asian region. The focus of the article is centered on the US interests as geopolitical imperatives aimed at fighting for the spheres of influence with important factors such as the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China. The method of system analysis and historical and chronological study of the issue revealed that the United States passed through several periods in the development of its policy in the region. In light of the aggravation of relations between the two sides, as well as the trade war between the US and China, the countries of the region are experiencing geopolitical impact and economic difficulties that make them become ‘closer’ to the United States of America.
U.S. Strategy in Central Asia: Problems and Achievements
Central Asia and the Caucasus, 2011
US engagement in the Caucasus: Changing gears
Helsinki Monitor, 2005
America's influence in the South Caucasus has gradually but continuously been on the rise since the independence of the South Caucasian states in 1991. While the United States has become an ever more important actor in the politics of the region, American interests in the South Caucasus have remained in a state of flux. Support for the independence of these states and for their democratisation and integration in Euro-Atlantic structures were initially enunciated as principles of US policy, while Washington identified few crucial national security interests in the region. In the mid-1990s, energy politics grew to become the main driving force of US attention to the region. While the strategic importance of the South Caucasus had been noted, strategic issues did not become a major consideration in the formulation of US policy until September 11, 2001, the events of which made the South Caucasus an important building block of the prosecution of the global war on terrorism. The developments in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia in the past three years indicate that American interests in the South Caucasus will continue to grow in the foreseeable future. The ensuing increased American presence in the South Caucasus is nevertheless likely to confront substantial challenges. US Policy in the 1990s: 'Sovereignty, Energy, and Security' The United States was one of the first states to establish diplomatic relations with the countries of the South Caucasus. As in other parts of the former Soviet Union, the main US policy principle was support for the sovereignty and independence of the newly independent states and for the advancement of liberal democracy and market economies in the post-Soviet space. Yet the armed conflicts that raged in the Caucasus in 1991-94, America's other post-cold war preoccupations (such as the Balkans, Somalia, and in general the building of a new world order), and the perceived absence of important national security interests in the South Caucasus precluded a significant US engagement with the region on a political level. Nevertheless, the Department of Defense had by 1994 singled out the South Caucasus as a strategically important region, not least given its potential to form an area of secular, independent and Western-friendly states between Russia and the Middle East. 2 At the time, this realisation had nevertheless not reached the political level.
Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implication for U.S. Interests
2006
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States recognized the independence of all the former Central Asian republics, supported their admission into Western organizations, and elicited Turkish support to counter Iranian influence in the region. Congress was at the forefront in urging the formation of coherent U.S. policies for aiding these and other Eurasian states of the former Soviet Union. Soon after the terrorist attacks on America on September 11, 2001, all the Central Asian states offered overflight and other support to coalition anti-terrorist efforts in Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan hosted coalition troops and provided access to airbases. In 2003, Uzbekistan endorsed coalition military action in Iraq and Kazakhstan provided about two dozen troops for rebuilding. After September 11, 2001, U.S. policy emphasized bolstering the security of the Central Asian states to help them combat terrorism, proliferation, and arms trafficking. Other strategic interests include internal reforms (democratization, free markets, and human rights) and energy development. Administration policy also aims to integrate these states into the international community so that they follow responsible security and other policies, and to discourage the growth of xenophobic, fundamentalist, and anti-Western orientations that threaten peace and stability. The Administration's policy goals in Central Asia reflect the differing characteristics of these states. U.S. interests in Kazakhstan include the security and elimination of Soviet-era nuclear and biological weapons materials and facilities. In Tajikistan, U.S. aid focuses on economic reconstruction. U.S. energy firms have invested in oil and natural gas development in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. IB93108 03-29-06 CRS-1 MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS On March 27, Kazakhstan's President Nursultan Nazarbayev opened the first session of the State Commission for Democratic Reform, composed of various citizen's groups and pro-government political parties. He proclaimed that the goal of the Commission is to enhance local self-rule and the links between the citizenry and the rulers, including through the mechanism of the ruling OTAN party. Critics have termed the Commission a means of controlling and coopting local human rights and pro-democracy non-governmental organizations. A seemingly positive development was the long-denied registration of the opposition Nagyz Ak Zhol (True Bright Path) party, whose former leader allegedly had been assassinated by high government officials in February 2006. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Central Asia consists of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan; it borders Russia, China, the Middle East, and South Asia. The major peoples of all but Tajikistan speak Turkic languages (the Tajiks speak an Iranian language); and most are Sunni Muslims (some Tajiks are Shiia Muslims). Most are closely related historically and culturally. By the late 19th century, Russian tsars had conquered the last independent khanates and nomadic lands of Central Asia. By the early 1920s, Soviet power had been imposed; by 1936, five "Soviet Socialist Republics" had been created. Upon the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991, they gained independence.
The April 2010 Coup in Kyrgyzstan: Context and Implications for U.S. Interests
2010
Kyrgyzstan is a small and poor country in Central Asia that gained independence in 1991 with the breakup of the Soviet Union (see Figure A-1). It has developed a notable but fragile civil society. Progress in democratization has been set back by problematic elections (one of which helped precipitate a coup in 2005 that brought Kurmanbek Bakiyev to power), contention over constitutions, and corruption. The April 2010 coup appears to have been triggered by popular discontent over rising utility prices and government repression. After two days of popular unrest in the capital of Bishkek and other cities, opposition politicians ousted the Bakiyev administration on April 8 and declared an interim government pending a new presidential election in six months. Roza Otunbayeva, a former foreign minister and ambassador to the United States, was declared the acting prime minister. The United States has been interested in helping Kyrgyzstan to enhance its sovereignty and territorial integrity, increase democratic participation and civil society, bolster economic reform and development, strengthen human rights, prevent weapons proliferation, and more effectively combat transnational terrorism and trafficking in persons and narcotics. The significance of Kyrgyzstan to the United States increased after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. The Kyrgyz government permitted the United States to establish a military base at the Manas international airport outside Bishkek that transships personnel, equipment, and supplies to support U.S. and NATO operations in Afghanistan. The former Bakiyev government had renegotiated a lease on the airbase in June 2009 (it was renamed a transit center), in recognition that ongoing instability in Afghanistan jeopardized regional security. The lease is up for renewal in July 2010. Otunbayeva has declared that the interim government will uphold Kyrgyzstan's existing foreign policy, including the presence of the "transit center," although some changes to the lease may be sought. Cumulative U.S. budgeted assistance to Kyrgyzstan for FY1992-FY2008 was $953.5 million (FREEDOM Support Act and agency funds). Kyrgyzstan ranks third in such aid per capita among the Soviet successor states, indicative of U.S. government and Congressional support in the early 1990s for its apparent progress in making reforms and more recently to support anti-terrorism, border protection, and operations in Afghanistan. As Congress and the Administration consider how to assist democratic and economic transformation in Kyrgyzstan, several possible programs have been suggested, including those to buttress civil rights, bolster political institutions and the rule of law, and encourage private sector economic growth. (See also CRS Report RL33458, Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests, by Jim Nichol.
Post 9-11 US policy in Central Asia.docx
Central Eurasian Journal, 2018
Related topics
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.