Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Uzbekistan and America's Future Conflicts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Uzbekistan and America's Future Conflicts

    Global Politician, NY
    July 31 2005

    Uzbekistan and America's Future Conflicts

    Angelique van Engelen - 7/31/2005

    As of next year, Central Asia will have come fully online to Western
    energy markets, as twin oil and gas pipelines linking the Caspian sea
    to Turkey will begin to deliver. By this time, the world will likely
    finally understand that US foreign policy, known to be energy
    focused, is intent on more than just bringing Iraq to its knees. This
    weekend's decision by the leadership of Uzbekizstan, just hours ahead
    of a key meeting with US officials, to ask US forces to leave its
    Karsy Khanabad airbase -dubbed K2- might be a turning point however.

    The US opened military bases in Uzbekistan and neighboring
    Kyrgyzstan, both bordering on China, in 2001. But the agreements were
    rather makeshift and the parties involved hardly trust each other. In
    the wake of the massacre by Uzbek government forces, the situation
    between the US and the regime in Uzbekistan have been especially
    jittery. US top officials did whatever they could to avoid Islam
    Karimov's regime to change its mind on the US troops' presence,
    including a shameful attempt to block UN action calling for an
    official investigation into the massacre. To no avail however. The
    deal -a collaboration of sorts- is off now. US troops are packing
    their bags.

    If this is a precursor to future developments, we can expect to see
    some more diplomatic manoevering soon. Most of the arrangements for
    US troop deployment in Central Asian countries have been forged under
    rather strenuous circumstances that could start to act up at moments
    way less painful than for instance a massacre. Elections will do just
    fine too. The recently forged access to a base in Azerbaijan,
    situated next to that monstrous Iran, was reportedly subject to some
    heavy coercing. Discussions between the US secretary of Defense
    Donald Rumsfeld and officials replacing the country's president Ilham
    Aliyev, publicly might have passed for negotiations but are said to
    be a first hand example of the very bullying that the US officials
    accuse Russia and China of in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

    If the efforts to gain greater access to the countries in the region
    and, more importantly, their hinterlands China and Iran, had largely
    escaped the world's notice, the process has received a serious
    setback for the US with this Uzbek decision, however sad the
    motivation. Recent events however do shed more insight over the
    priorities Washington has.

    The last five years' worth of practical efforts on the part of the US
    to become involved in Central Asia show quite clearly just how self
    centered and immoral many moves are. And as the region's USD3 billion
    flagship energy project -the Baku, Tblisi, Ceyhan pipeline- hits the
    limelight, it is likely details of the exact role Washington intends
    to play in the region will be measured out more public.

    Ever since the region's oil wealth was discovered, US policymakers
    have been working hard to be in on the party. They won a key
    strategic concession by getting the countries through which this
    'East-West energy transit corridor' would run (Turkey, Azerbaijan,
    Georgia and Kazakhstan) to exclude Iran and Russia. The US efforts
    have been near as intense as the host countries' work laying out the
    pipeline. But now the US role might turn a lot more controversial,
    not least because the military aspect attached to it starting to be
    questioned in ways that have real tangible impact. If a country like
    Uzbekistan can tell the US to get lost, who guarantees the others
    won't follow soon?

    The writing is on the wall in this respect. Countries in the region
    are increasinly linking the deals for the US army to be stationed on
    their bases to the situation in Afghanistan. After this war is over,
    the Asian countries are less likely to welcome US troops, however
    sorded the reasons and however good a blackmailing case the US might
    use to barge in nevertheless.

    In the past, the US State Department has gained access to these
    countries saying the war on terror was the mission, but the soldiers
    sent to the region had received training that was focused more or
    less on energy however. It appeared soon later that the troop
    deployment was part of the US' intended fight to 'decisively win
    multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars'. This has mostly escaped
    the world's notice because most of the jostling for access took place
    as the War or Terror took off, yet there are strategic Washington
    documents simply spelling out these 'by-goals', the most outspoken of
    which are those of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a
    controversial organization the members of which dominate the echelons
    of power in Washington.

    It cannot be denied that the importance of the region is key to goals
    stated by many US foreign policy documents. The allegations are
    perhaps not so far off, that US agents might have been involved in
    the revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine and that US infiltrants might
    have been instrumental in the events spiralling out of control in
    Kyrgyzstan, the region's last country to witness such a highly
    uncharacteristic event which commentators still hesitate to describe
    as a revolution.

    So far, events have accumulated in Central Asia rather silently, but
    last weekend's Uzbek announcement shows that this might be over.
    Earlier in the week, Kyrgyzstan, which hosts the spearhead for the
    Shanghai Cooperative Organization's (SCO) rapid reaction forces in
    Kant, also spoke out uncharacteristically sharp in this respect. High
    ranking US officials were forced to be somewhat honest about their
    agenda, responding to the Kyrgyzstani demand that Washington set a
    clear date for troop departures from its soil as well as from
    Uzbekistan. The claim was countered by the Chairman of the Joint
    Chiefs of staff and Air Force General Richard Myers who accused China
    and Russia -interestingly- of 'trying to bully' those Central Asian
    countries that host US troops.

    He also conceded that the US could help bring 'security and
    stability' to Central Asia. Words that are often heard now and that
    seem to have become the new standard sound byte, replacing lines on
    Afghanistan. Shortly afterwards, an official at the Pentagon followed
    up on the comments, saying the US did not necessarily see the bases
    in these two countries as critical, and that it has built up enough
    flexibility to get along without access to the countries' bases. He
    put a brave face on it. The two countries are incremental for the US
    ground plans to deter what it conceives as Chinese military treats.

    The former Russian base in Uzbekistan that the US is asked to vacate
    is, at 1,500 capacity, one of the largest the US has access to in the
    region. The Kyrgyzstan air base in Manas, also known as the Peter J.
    Ganci base (after the New York City fireman who died in the World
    Trade Center), is even bigger, at 2,000 capacity. Sources report that
    extensive infrastructure has been built, including a central power
    plant, a hospital and two industrial-size kitchens. The flexibility
    that is quoted by US officials likely amounts to the concessions they
    negotiated with the regime in Kazakhstan, who conceded they could use
    their bases for landing and taking off as well as its presence in
    Tadjikistan, also not half as attractive as the Uzbeki and
    Kyrgyzstani situations.

    The accusations by the US who says Russia and China are bullying
    these two countries into submission are interpreted by observers as a
    case of the pot calling the kettle black. The access to Azerbaijan
    -not part of the SCO- is also enshrowded in mystery that doesn't
    appear to be much good. Though U.S. officials deny that their forces
    are already stationed in Azerbaijan, they concede that the country is
    vital for future US bases in the region. The intelligence monitor
    Stratfor reported this April that some U.S. troops and materiel are
    already in the country, and more forces and aircraft will be deployed
    there later this year. Citing 'multiple sources' both official and
    unofficial, the report indicates that both U.S. troops and aircraft
    have arrived. The report claims that Azerbaijani government sources
    have confirmed there is an agreement between Baku and Washington on
    locating U.S. "temporarily deployed mobile forces", a deal struck at
    the Baku airport by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's and the
    Azerbaijani Prime Minister Artur Rasizade and Defense Minister Safar
    Abiyev -- acting on behalf of Aliyev. The latter was -conveniently-
    out of the country at the time. Apparently Rumsfeld and Aliyev missed
    each other by hours.

    "Sources said that Rumsfeld, not satisfied with Baku's initial
    agreement, pressured the officials to set a quick fixed date to begin
    major deployments of U.S. forces to Azerbaijan", according to the
    Stratfor report. The country is said to be strategic to the US in
    case it decides to attack Iran. Plans for such an event are being
    researched in depth by Washington, among others by the U.S. Strategic
    Command (STRATCOM), which has been asked to draw up concrete, short
    term contingency plans, to involve "a large-scale air assault
    employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons", reports
    Counterpunch columnist Gary Leupp, in an article entitled 'Is Iran
    being set up?' Answering in the confirmative, he warns that the
    consequences of such action would be disastrous for all the goodwill
    the US is building up in Iraq currently. "Do they even realize that
    southern Iraq and Iran constitute the heartland of historical Shiism,
    and that an attack on Iran will negate any goodwill among Shiites
    U.S. forces have acquired in Iraq?", he wonders.

    Officials do not confirm reports that Azerbaijani bases are at this
    point utilized by the US army, but at the same time they do not deny
    that Iran is not on the hotlist for possible military action. And
    where else to attack from but from a base in the region? An
    officially commissioned study by the Washington based Iran Policy
    Committee (IPC) recommends a regime change in Iran is desirable to
    -in the study's wording- 'recall the nuclear time clock that is
    ticking down as Iran drives to reach nuclear weapons capability'.

    What exactly would have made the Azerbaijani leadership agree to US
    troops renting former Russian bases on its soil might not be
    everyone's guess. The current leader Ilham Aliyev who took over from
    his father after controversial elections in 2003, could easily be
    toppled in the same fashion as his colleagues in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan
    and Ukraine, which saw popular uprisings that many say was spurred on
    if not incited by US agents. This might explain the Azerbaijani
    regime's preference to delay the major U.S. forces' arrival -- or at
    least the formal announcement of it -- until after the elections this
    November. "The current government would be accused of election fraud
    and treated accordingly by the West and Western-encouraged
    opposition", according to the Stratfor analysis. Officially, Aliyev
    is said to favor a pluralistic foreign policy, having resolved
    differences with Russia over its troops in a base in Qabala,
    northwest of Baku. It is believed that President Putin has
    tentatively allowed US troops can be stationed there, but that he
    demands to say in the loop on the issue.

    Apart from the direct tension between Washington, Moscow and some of
    the Central Asian countries, other countries in the world are
    decidedly negative on the US strategy of setting up camp everywhere
    it sees fit, even though much of the disconsent has hardly come to
    the surface because of the way the access to Central Asia has been
    couched in the official spoken rhetoric. The first and foremost
    reason the Americans cite for their necessary presence is the
    situation in Afghanistan, but slowly it is now becoming clear that
    the long-term vision consists of guaranteed access to energy
    resources and countering the 'strength of the Chinese army' in the
    region. Which amounts, in real factual terms to its membership of the
    SCO with Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. The countries
    have been holding joint exercises for three years.

    China is currently surrounded by a whole chain of major military
    bases hosting US troops in Central Asia, as well as in Afghanistan,
    Pakistan, and Vietnam. China is not known to be vying superpower
    status to the extent that it wishes to dominate the world militarily.
    The same cannot be said of the US regime. The extent of the US army
    buildup in Asia today is not really comparable to the international
    deployment of US troops during the cold war, but it has been termed
    an elaborated, more sophisticated, new, flexible defense
    infrastructure for intervening in-or initiating- "hot wars" from the
    Middle East to the Caucasus to East Asia. The fear that's making US
    policy makers shivver with regards to China is only exacerbated or
    feeding off Chinese army asperations to be modern, flexible and high
    tech.

    Donald Rumsfeld on a recent Asian trip confirmed the notion entirely,
    saying simply China was becoming too powerful for the liking of the
    Pentagon. No further qualification of the danger. A recent Pentagon
    report on Chinese military strength underlines that simple growth and
    sophistication of an army is somehow immediately seen as equal to a
    threat, without this necessarily having to be the case. It states
    that China is expanding its missile capabilities in Asia and the
    Pacific, improving its army's capability 'to project power' and is
    upgrading its military technology. Whatever the US leadership is
    saying about the Chinese, most comments are geared to the end that
    China is an increasing threat, even though the country never singles
    the US out as an enemy. The phrase of the pot calling the kettle
    black might yet again have acquired new meaning.

    "China has three priorities: economic growth, economic growth,
    economic growth," according to Kenneth Courtis, Vice Chairman of
    Goldman Sachs in Asia. A recent document drawn up by the US-China
    Security Review Commission simply underlines this. The document,
    drawn up by a panel of Washington insiders and business people, is
    decisive proof that the only reason the Americans are going about
    their business in the region is to ensure the continuation of their
    hegemony worldwide and will utilize every trick in the school book to
    achieve their ends. Even if in recent decades the official line has
    been to encourage the process of capitalism in China, Washington is
    not pleased with the impressive accomplishments at all now. Beijing
    is now seen as a growing threat, both economically and militarily.
    What Washington is focusing on in its treatment of China will grow
    from criticism of human rights, limited religious freedom into more
    potent issues such as an alleged failure to stamp out illegal sales
    of nuclear materials and missile-related technology to countries
    accused of sponsoring terrorism. The usual.

    The report however also mentions highly illustrative 'motivators'
    that are more difficult to classify as offensive under international
    law stipulations. What the authors really have a problem with though
    is the fact that China is 'challenging the US in the manufacturing of
    airframes, computers and aeronautical guidance systems'. Why? They
    are markets America once dominated. America's growing reliance on
    high quality, low-price Chinese imports eventually might "undermine
    the US defense industrial base," it is furthermore asserted. China
    has a leg up on the US in trade, as it has managed to gain access to
    more than US$14 billion, worth of investments raised in US capital
    markets. This is believed to be the main source of the Chinese
    initiative to modernize its military and growing its influence in
    South-East Asia 'at the expense of the US'. The commissioners even
    feel threatened by the lure of the Chinese market for international
    business and cite this as an aggravating factor for the massive US$
    87 billion US-China trade imbalance.

    Whatever the pretext Washington decides to come up with for a
    possible next country to attack, the material is in the making,
    testimony this report. There is tons of other stuff, which shows that
    the US is not going to be abating this line. The key document
    underpinning US international policy, the National Security Strategy
    of the United States of America, clearly states the overall goal;
    "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries
    from pursuing a military build-up in the hopes of surpassing, or
    equalling, the power of the United States". This is a rather factual
    betrayal of all its allies. The US simply states here it will never
    be able to be friendly with any power outside that might live up to
    the very principals it is preaching whilst going its destructive
    course.

    "This [...] has come as an unpleasant surprise to those who swallowed
    the idea that economic globalisation was being accompanied by the
    emergence of forms of `global governance' that would overcome the
    centuries-old struggle for supremacy among the Great Powers", says
    Dipak Basu, a columnist at People's Democracy. Lesser left wing
    observers agree on this point.

    In future it will be hard to convince the domestic US population of
    the merits of any ventures akin to the war against Iraq. Hard, but
    not impossible. The past five years have shown that it is possible
    that you can use means that are inconceivably hard faced and void of
    all logic to launch a war. Even though the reasons that were cited
    for going to war on Iraq are by many Americans seen as failing to
    come close to reality, they have been documented. Current new reports
    on Iran, China and other countries show eery resemblance to this
    planning.

    The idea that that the US should be in control of the resources and
    territories of Central Asia was launched in the early 1970s. In his
    book The Grand Chessboard, Zbignew Brzezinski, who used to be an
    advisor to Rockefeller and president Carter launches this idea,
    stating as a reason the enormous concentration of oil and gas
    reserves. In describing the best way to go about this, Brzezinski's
    book reads like a document issuing favorable advise on the war in
    Iraq. He says that a "truly massive and widely perceived external
    threat? is needed to incline the US public into a supportive mood for
    engagement in international war. Even though he wrote the book eight
    years ago, and even though the US public has felt betrayed by its
    rulers since, this thinking is still not eradicated at all.

    There is little the rest of the world can do, apart from object and
    exercising international law and staving off the US dominance over
    key areas within the UN. Europeans do not like the cowboy style
    military strategy abroad, but even if European officials would call
    Washington to justify its bases, at this point the US would hardly
    care. The war against Iraq has shown this repeatedly. General
    closeness between European nations and the US, the product of years
    long cooperation, is however often taken for granted at points that
    benefit the US. Recently, Europeans did not blink an eyelid when they
    saw the US block a UN effort to call Uzbek leaders to question for
    the atrocities they commanded in Andijan where over 700 protestors
    died at the hands of government troops. The reason? Fear that the US
    access to the country's air force bases would be compromised. The EU
    line is that it's desired that international forces are present in
    the country to make sure human rights are honored.

    It somewhat subjects its ties with Russia to such demands. The
    Russian-German-French troika or the EU-3 which has been close to
    Moscow, and which dominated the foreign affairs of the EU over the
    past decade, might well be on its last legs however. The Troika's
    motivating factor for involving Russia actively in the not so distant
    past has been to throw up a counterweight to the US on the
    international political stage. If Europeans are planning to make
    themselves heard on the world stage at any time in the future, it is
    still very likely they will individually or collectively seek Russia
    out all the more.

    Russia meanwhile has reacted as if stung by a bee. It increased its
    efforts in the region, in the wake of three revolutions in Georgia,
    Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. President Putin is now more active than at
    any point in his tenure in getting the Russian army to assert its
    influence in its former republics. He has, among other things,
    overseen the conversion of Russia's military deployments in
    Tajikistan into a permanent base, only just beating the Americans to
    it. The Central Asian regimes still in place are remarkably loyal to
    Moscow, not only because of their mutual history, but also because
    they do not wish to undergo the same fate as the previous regimes of
    Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan and believe that Moscow can protect
    them.

    Analysts say that the wider populations broadly support independence
    from both the West and Moscow, even though the societal make up and
    the domestic economies of these countries is recognized as fragile. A
    decisive factor is that the US influence is accompanied by economic
    incentives which are likely more attractive than what Russia offers
    in return. Kazakhstan, the largest of the Asian states and an active
    NATO partner, where US oil firms are well represented, is leading the
    way in favoring large Western investments over politics favoring the
    U.S. to leave neighboring countries. The reimbursements the US pays
    the countries do make a considerable difference to their national
    accounts. Georgia, for instance, was recently paid USD64 million as
    part of a two-year "train and equip" mission, in which US Special
    Forces trained a 2,000 strong antiterrorist force that patrols the
    Pankisi Gorge, which is where Chechen rebels and AI Qaeda fighters
    hide out. This easily outstrips the country's annual income from
    overseas workers and tourism. The company building the barracks and
    other facilities for the US trainers is Kellogg Brown & Root division
    of Halliburton industries, the former business of US vice president
    Dick Cheney, which is building plenty of other facilities in this
    region, as well as in Iraq.

    Moral issues aside, the question of whether the US really needs to
    maintain a foreign strategy centered on energy is an issue the
    experts disagree about. Some analysts believe that the day will come
    that the rationale for maintaining a military presence in conjunction
    with energy needs will be abandoned because it will prove too costly.
    So far, this does not seem to be the opinion of US policy makers; the
    current US' worldwide presence outside resembles a specialist energy
    map of the globe. Aside from Central Asia, there are not many
    countries where US troops are stationed that do not have energy
    resources crucial to the US. They include Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait,
    Saudi Arabia, Oman, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Djibouti, the
    Philippines, Vietnam, Japan Jordan, Kuwait, Yemen and India.

    A country like Azerbaijan, where the Americans are positioning their
    troops literally next to the pipeline for the time being serves the
    purpose of defending energy interests quite credibly, even though the
    ultimate importance that the East West Energy Transit Corridor has on
    international markets is debatable. This is not so much because of
    the absolute amount of oil that it will pour onto world markets from
    this project, but more because of growing scarcety that determines
    developments in the world oil supply scene. At 1 million barrels per
    day, the project's initial impact will be most drastic, because it
    will account for 25% of all new oil supply, and 1.3% of global
    supply, putting it on a par with Iraq. By comparison, Saudi Arabia
    produces an estimated 9.8%. Not exactly earth shattering numbers, yet
    the deliberations concerning energy supply are largely argued in
    terms of demand that is rapidly outstripping supply. This way, any
    new project being launched can easily be termed vital, even if the US
    is in reality maintaining the base in case it needs it to attack
    Iran.

    The two factors coincide quite happily. Oil market predictions have
    always tended to influence US war rhetoric. And from the reports that
    are currently drawn up, it is clear that the extremist, paranoid
    component to the reasoning has not diminished at all. What's worse,
    analysts believe that any threat to US access to energy is not
    necessarily going to have to be as extreme as Saddam Hussein's regime
    purported possession of weapons of mass destruction for the US to
    take action.

    "Significant price impacts in the global oil market are caused by
    modest marginal changes; the unanticipated one or two million barrels
    of oil per day of American and Chinese demand have helped to push
    prices up and keep them at elevated levels over the last several
    years", one analyst points out, saying this kind of data alone is
    likely enough reason for the US to base rather strategic decisions
    on. Other indicators also state that the US has become more extreme
    than ever in securing its energy needs. For one, ordinary US citizens
    stating their views on forums tend to baffle Europeans saying their
    government is right at invading other countries for the purpose of
    securing energy access. The general criticism is that the US hardly
    lives up to efforts made by others to combat the negative side
    effects of the consumerism propelling this urge. The US' refusal to
    sign the Kyoto Protocol is rather assymmetric to the vehemence with
    which energy resources are appropriated.

    Even though some Central Asian countries have shown a welcoming
    attitude to foreign troops and are keen to work in NATO structures,
    it does not automatically mean that their leaders are necessarily
    consistently pro West. The sea change in Uzbekistan might underline
    this. Central Asian countries generally view the West as the most
    effective ally in their efforts to build fully independent states,
    but the strength of their current pro-Western policies varies. Often
    this has a lot to do with internal issues. Azerbaijan showed just how
    fickle things are still only this last year, when it effectively
    cancelled a NATO exercise of the alliance in September, not hiding
    its displeasure at the plan's inclusion of Armenian soldiers.
    Azerbaijan for the last decade has strongly contested Armenia's
    occupation of the region which is dominated by Armenians, and it is
    likely going to be key in Azerbaijani NATO negotiations. Recently,
    assistant Secretary-General for Defence Planning and Operations John
    Colston visited Baku and reported that "Special reports will be
    prepared soon, which will identify the main directions of cooperation
    between the alliance and Azerbaijan. It is expected Azerbaijan is
    ready to join the alliance 2006. The issue of Nagorno Karabakh is
    likely key here. But the country has a history of making sea changes.
    At the moment, Azerbaijan is a member of the Russian-invented
    Commonwealth of International States too, even though it rejected
    this in the early 1990s. The membership includes the Treaty on
    Collective Security, and an agreement on economic cooperation.

    Many countries in the regions have NATO applications that might
    translate into membership this year or next. Some are quite far into
    the process, notably Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan and
    Moldova. These five countries are united in GUAAM, an organization
    modeled on NATO's Conventional Forces in Europe, which was launched
    in 1996. The countries declared their commitment to becoming more
    independent from Russia in their defense policies, pooling their
    diplomatic resources in order to to oppose Russian troop deployment
    in or near their countries. The main reason for the pact was to
    create more security through collaboration from possible
    destabilizing action Russia might undertake against these countries.
    All countries except Azerbaijan are dependent on supplies of oil and
    gas either from or through Russia. Azerbaijan's oil and gas exports
    that are not directed at Turkey go either through Russia or through
    countries that Russia is in a position to destabilize. Russia is
    known to employ tactics like suspending the supplies or redirecting
    export routes to manipulate the foreign and domestic policies of the
    former Soviet Republics at an absolute whim.

    The true independence that most Central Asian countries are after
    will likely materialize as its mineral wealth gets monetized. Georgia
    for instance stands to gain an income from transit tariffs of $50-60
    million per year of the oil pipeline that runs through its territory.
    What's more, the pipeline will likely provide an economic snowball
    effect. In a few years, the country might be seen as more stable than
    ever, which will improve Georgia's investment climate for other
    projects. This in turn will likely lead to greater independent
    foreign policy too. Hopefully, the countries will exhibit an appetite
    for unauthoritarian forms of democracy that yield a liberty that will
    prove to be simply incorruptible by outside powers.

    Angelique van Engelen is a former Middle East correspondent and
    currently runs a writing agency http://www.contentclix.com. She also
    participates in a writing ring http://clixyplays.blogspot.com/
Working...
X