When Washington's "it" think tank, the Center for a New American Security, published a report (pdf) today called "Beyond Afghanistan: A Regional Security Strategy for South and Central Asia," I dug in, expecting some serious discussion of the Northern Distribution Network, the instability in Tajikistan, the possibility of a "New Silk Road" and so on. But instead, the ex-Soviet states were almost entirely ignored in this "regional strategy." The report focuses on Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, calling Afghanistan's other neighbors "influential but ultimately less vital actors." The short section on Central Asia was written, probably tellingly, by an intern.
As far as it goes, that's probably a correct assessment. Afghanistan is obviously central to the U.S.'s interests in the region now, Pakistan's influence in Afghanistan is clearly a huge issue, and Pakistan's relationship with India is the key to untangling that. By comparison, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, to say nothing of the other Central Asian states, are secondary players (though many boosters, for example Fred Starr, argue otherwise). On twitter, one of the report's authors, Andrew Exum, defended the de-emphasis of Central Asia: "The key question is how much of a *priority* should CA be for policy-makers given other, competing priorities." And it's hard to argue with that.
But while Central Asia may play only a small role in Afghanistan, Afghanistan plays an enormous role in the U.S.'s policy toward Central Asia. And the report's scant analysis of Central Asia illustrates how that focus on Afghanistan is getting Washington into some serious pickles further north. Take this section, flagged by Joshua Foust in a very perceptive post on the blog Registan:
The United States will also need deeper intelligence and security relationships with the states of Central Asia to contain and defeat al Qaeda and its allies, as these terrorist groups seek new locales that offer respite from the intense pressure they now face in Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, deepening these relationships creates a conundrum for the United States, since autocrats rule these countries and democratic movements are often suppressed. The United States must continue to advocate for democratic reforms while engaging in these counterterrorism partnerships. In the best case, military-to-military and other security relationships may help establish a standard of democratic civil-military values in the region. This is an important and consistent component of any U.S. military assistance efforts.
The emphasis on the "terror threat" in Central Asia, while advocating for the strengthening of military partnerships, with some obligatory hand-waving about "democratic reforms," will no doubt sound familiar -- and cringeworthy -- to people who follow Central Asia closely. Astute leaders like Islam Karimov, Emomali Rakhmon and Nursultan Nazarbayev know that with the war effort in Afghanistan being so central to U.S. policy in their countries, military cooperation will always trump anything else -- and even more so the more they talk up spurious terror threats. And that singleminded focus allows the Central Asian countries to direct the U.S. aid for their own ends -- which are frequently not in the U.S.'s interests. That can include support in putting down domestic threats, as seen with Donald Rumsfeld's continued justification of Karimov's brutal crackdown on protesters in Andijan, abetting corruption, as with the U.S.'s entanglements with the former government in Kyrgyzstan over fuel contracts for the U.S. air base, or in taking sides in regional disputes, as with the construction of a training base in Kyrgyzstan, next to the Uzbekistan border.
Perhaps, then, CNAS didn't go far enough: maybe the U.S. should be doing even less than it's doing now in Central Asia. This report is especially important because CNAS is a really influential actor in DC, staffed by many of the counterinsurgency gurus credited with stanching the disastrous bleeding in Iraq and now trying to do the same thing in Afghanistan. But to whatever extent its recommendations on Central Asia will be taken to heart in Washington, it is a recipe for more of the same.
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.