Assessing the Ramifications of US Troop Deployment in Central Asia

The United States has announced that US military troops are headed to Uzbekistan. According to US officials, soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division will be deployed in Uzbekistan, ostensibly to protect US logistics and supply bases that will support expected military operations against Afghanistan. Uzbek President Islam Karimov has insisted that US facilities in Uzbekistan are intended only to serve in a support capacity, and cannot be utilized to launch air attacks or a ground assault against the Taliban or loyalists of Osama bin Laden. Nevertheless, the implications of the deployment of US ground forces in Central Asia are enormous. EurasiaNet spoke with John Schoeberlein, president of the Central Eurasian Studies Society at Harvard University and a leading expert on Uzbekistan, about the ramifications of the US deployment. His comments follow:

EurasiaNet: What is the mood now in the Ferghana Valley in Central Asia? Has the crisis concerning Afghanistan affected the mood in the valley?

Schoeberlein: It is difficult to assess in a broad way. There hasn't been much time since the September 11 events. But, generally, there is great nervousness in the region about anything that could set off instability. This has tremendously exacerbated the existing tension in the valley. It has also raised concerns connected with the potential reaction to Islam and the underground movement. There is concern that there will be a further crackdown.

EurasiaNet: Have there been any signs that the crackdown is intensifying?

Schoeberlein: I haven't seen any signs of that.

EurasiaNet: Do you think that the crackdown will intensify?

Schoeberlein: It is difficult to say. Speaking about the level of arrests, we don't have good numbers. That makes it difficult to assess trends. All we know is that many people are affected. So, even with a little more time passing, it may be difficult to assess how much might have changed. ... One reason why there is concern is because, until recently, the Uzbek government worried that their moves to crack down would draw international criticism. Just on the eve of these of these events [the September 11 attacks], the US Commission on International Religious Freedom was assessing the question of religious freedom in Uzbekistan. Following these events, it becomes much more difficult to give the Uzbek government a negative rating because this might be seen as interfering with the war effort and military cooperation between the two countries.

EurasiaNet: President Karimov has been supportive of the US anti-terrorism effort, according to accounts in Western news media. However, Uzbek media has been pretty much silent on the topic of US-Uzbek cooperation. What do you make of this apparent discrepancy?

Schoeberlein: The reasons behind this may be connected with the nervousness that the government of Uzbekistan itself feels in terms of the response by its own population. Another very important factor is these very sensitive relationships are still being worked out, and here I mean not only the relationship between the United States and Uzbekistan, but also that between Uzbekistan and Russia. Russia is very nervous about a US presence on the ground in what is considered Moscow's former territory, and its current sphere of influence. I think there are back-room discussions going on now among all these governments to try to work out some arrangement, and, most likely, many of the details need to be resolved. This may be what lies behind US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's visit to Tashkent.

EurasiaNet: Do you see any long-term implications of a US military presence in Uzbekistan?

Schoeberlein: The likelihood of a major operation being based in Uzbekistan is perhaps not great. There are logistical difficulties - Uzbekistan is a long way from an ocean for supply purposes. So even if they got everything that they wanted, US officials might not do that much from Uzbek territory. Nevertheless, it seems that there will be some operations out of Uzbekistan and this has important implications for the future.

One, for the first time the United States will be directly intervening in this region. Even during the 1979-89 Afghan war, the United States never had ground troops in the region, and certainly not in former Soviet territory. Another factor that will come to the forefront is the potential for increased anti-Western feeling in Uzbekistan. Until now, there really hasn't been any anti-Western sentiment, even among the rather extreme forms of Islamism. They [Islamic radicals] have said bad things about the United States, but they haven't really been oriented towards taking hostages or acts of terrorism against US targets. That could change and it precisely this sort of basing arrangement that could become a motivator for the support that Osama bin Laden has received from Muslims elsewhere. Support for bin Laden hasn't come from Central Asians per se, but Central Asia hasn't had American bases either. This could also create considerable tension among the states of Central Asia, at least those hosting US forces, and Russia -if it becomes a permanent feature, as opposed to a temporary operation.

EurasiaNet: Do you get the impression that, given Karimov's rhetoric on US basing, Uzbekistan is making a geopolitical gambit to escape Russia's sphere of influence?

Schoeberlein: What we have seen over the last couple of weeks is just a continuation of the politics that had been going on in the region before September 11. The United States was trying to promote greater sovereignty among the states of Central Asia - in a sense, trying to wean them away from Russian influence. Russia, meanwhile, was very much trying to retain that influence. Various Central Asian states had adopted different positions along these axes. Uzbekistan was the one country that was really quite strident at times in its opposition to Russian influence. For example, the Uzbeks pulled out of the CIS Collective Security Treaty, and around the same time they joined the GUUAM group of countries, which does not include Russia. They have been wanting to assert their independence, and the United States has been keen to promote that trend. The United States has also sometimes encouraged Uzbekistan to see itself as Washington's key strategic ally within the region. So that trend is very much reinforced by the latest events.

The tensions that made it difficult to realize those realignments in the past have not disappeared. The events of September 11 have, perhaps somewhat temporarily, changed the priorities, making it difficult for Russia to speak out strongly against US intervention here. But it doesn't mean that those fundamental problems will disappear.

EurasiaNet: So does the United States' decision to base some operations in Uzbekistan carry with it certain obligations to Uzbekistan, such as a security guarantee?

Schoeberlein: There are various kinds of obligations. One category would be to help the Uzbek battle their own internal security problem, namely the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There are some hints that this is, in fact, what is involved in the negotiations [between the two countries]. There was a mention of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan in President Bush's speech to congress on September 20. This mention would appear to be connected with the Uzbek government's own desire for the campaign against terrorism to also target the IMU. If this is the case, the United States could become embroiled in an internal conflict within a Central Asian country. Obviously, this would be a dramatic new development.

Another kind of obligation would be supporting the country through its economic woes, providing development assistance on a scale that hasn't been provided in the past. One hopes that there will be an effort to strengthen the economies of these countries. There is also a risk that in the current climate it will be very difficult for the United States to put pressure on governments, such as that in Uzbekistan, to carry out the fundamental reforms that until now have been seen as absolutely essential in making assistance efforts worthwhile.