The move toward trying to open up to the public the arrangements by which the U.S. government bought fuel at the Manas base in Kyrgyzstan appears to be gaining momentum. There was a terrific investigative piece in The Nation last week, which anyone interested in this issue should read in full. It involves a former U.S. defense attache in Bishkek, a whole host of extralegal (to put it gently) contracts and even Bob Dole (somewhat indirectly). This is the gist:
Officials in Kyrgyzstan's provisional government say it straight out: Mina Corp., the affiliate of Red Star, was paying funds to Maksim Bakiyev, the president's son. The new government's chief of staff Baisalov says that in order to keep the air base secure and supplied with fuel, the United States essentially "bribed the Kyrgyz ruling family. First it was Akayev and then it was Bakiyev. On one hand, the White House and the US State Department, they announce these noble goals, democracy, good government, and on the other hand, the military comes in and overrides everyone else." The Defense Logistics Agency, which oversees the Defense Energy Support Center, wouldn't comment specifically on that, even to deny it. "We can't speak to that," said DLA spokesman Dennis Gauci. "You'll have to speak to Mina Corp."
But the devil is in the details, and that piece is full of good ones.
Still, that piece raises many more questions than answers. And it seems there are two primary lines of questioning that we'll look at going ahead.
From the Washington perspective, it will be very interesting to figure out how and why this situation emerged. Fortunately, a Congressional committee appears to be doing a serious investigation of this question, and its first hearing was on Thursday. But that was just outside experts -- the real action will be when the committee gets government officials to testify. And it is perhaps too naive and optimistic to expect some reform out of this, but this case has drawn attention to the fact that government agencies like the Pentagon aren't subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits this sort of bribery. Fixing that would seem like a no-brainer good governance move, and we'll see if it happens.
And from the Kyrgyzstan perspective, another question will be, assuming that the U.S. doesn't bribe the government of Kyrgyzstan any more, will the Kyrgyz allow Manas to remain?
Steve LeVine covered last week's hearing and quoted Alexander Cooley as saying that "Kyrgyz politicians are certain to seize on the military base as an issue in October presidential elections. If the fuel scandal isn't resolved by then -- meaning if the U.S. hasn't fessed up -- Cooley suggested that the base could be in trouble."
LeVine continues:
The thread running through the testimony was that the U.S. needs to get in front of a running train or perhaps lose the base to rightly offended local sensibilities. Getting in front of the train means a serious FCPA investigation, and thus perhaps stepping on toes over at the Pentagon.
I'm sure that there will be those in the government who will argue that the U.S. airing its dirty laundry in this case will serve to only further offend local sensibilities, and further turn public opinion against the base's presence. And I'm sure they will also point to the double standard that the U.S. is held to in these cases -- where are the investigations of the Russian contracts on its bases in Tajikistan or Armenia (or in Kyrgyzstan, for that matter)? Does anyone believe that those are all done above board? Still, I would guess that LeVine is right, and that now that the cat is out of the bag, the U.S. only has one choice and that's to come clean.
Joshua Kucera, a senior correspondent, is Eurasianet's former Turkey/Caucasus editor and has written for the site since 2007.
Sign up for Eurasianet's free weekly newsletter. Support Eurasianet: Help keep our journalism open to all, and influenced by none.