Next Stop, Karshi-Khanabad?

As they prepare to pull troops out of Kyrgyzstan, U.S. officials look for a new home in a difficult neighborhood. From EurasiaNet. by David Trilling 16 February 2009 Speculating over the future of the U.S. air base in Kyrgyzstan is a popular pastime in Central Asian capitals these days. The general consensus is that Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiev is taking a gamble, playing a waiting game in the expectation that Washington will come up with more money to retain Manas air base. But some experts believe that with the United States now actively pondering its options, the Kyrgyz leader faces the danger of overplaying his hand.

Kyrgyz MPs have indicated that a vote on the government bill to terminate the Americans’ lease at Manas won’t occur until April at the earliest. Regional analysts are now trying to peg the value of Manas within the context of American operations in Afghanistan. Many experts agree with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ 10 February statement that the base "is important, but not irreplaceable." And many speak of the possibility of a U.S. return to Uzbekistan, with or without Manas.

Azamat Temirkulov, a political science professor at the Bishkek-based American University in Central Asia, is among those who see Uzbekistan as a likely fit for future military cooperation with the West. Both Washington and Tashkent are ready to move past the mutual acrimony generated by the 2005 Andijan events, he hinted. "Uzbekistan already has the experience of having U.S. bases on its territory. It also has experience leading an independent foreign policy toward Moscow," Temirkulov said. If the United States makes Tashkent a good offer, he added, "I think they will accept it."

The chairman of Tajikistan’s National Association of Political Scientists, Abdugani Mamadazimov, feels that the Americans need Manas and will probably stay. But they would be wise to consider other options, he said. "I think [the Kyrgyz government] will slow down the departure process," he said, adding that Russian offers of help could not be taken at face value. The Kyrgyz move in early February to boot U.S. forces out of Manas followed a Russian offer to provide Bishkek a $2.15 billion aid package.

It is clear that U.S. and NATO officials are actively pondering all alternatives to Manas. In Brussels on 11 February, following talks with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Tajik President Imomali Rahmon lobbied for NATO to use supply routes or even a new base in his country.

"As an important force for maintaining peace in Afghanistan, NATO should cooperate actively with neighboring countries, in particular, with Tajikistan [because it] has the longest border with Afghanistan in Central Asia," Rahmon said, according the Tajik leader’s presidential website.

But the Tajiks may have their hands tied, says Muzaffar Olimov, director of Dushanbe’s Sharq Analytical Center. "We are a little limited in action because we [already] have a Russian base in Tajikistan, and before making any decision on locating [a U.S.] base here, we will have to ask Russia," he said. "I think it will be problematic for Tajikistan to decide whether an American base will be here or not."

DON’T CALL US AMERICANS

In the future, the Western presence in the region – including at Manas, if it remains open – may take a less overtly American flavor, regional analysts predict. Mamadazimov said any prospective facility in Tajikistan would have to operate under NATO auspices to avoid upsetting the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. "Since we are part of the SCO and the SCO’s actions are a little anti-American, the Americans will try to [appear under the] image of NATO here," he said.

Temirkulov is skeptical Manas will close but agrees the profile may change. "I think [Manas] will remain here. If something changes, it will be the [base’s] status. It may not be considered American anymore," but still host American troops under a NATO commander.

Observers in Bishkek believe American concerns over human rights, democracy, and corruption in Kyrgyzstan have long been held hostage to Washington’s need for Manas. The failure to speak up as Kyrgyzstan has tumbled toward instability has slowly discredited American values, they say.

Bishkek-based human rights activist Aziza Abdurasulova has found Washington to be a disappointing ally during the base’s tenure in Kyrgyzstan. "There have been situations when [the Americans] were silent, and the factor was probably the presence of their base in Kyrgyzstan," she said. Repeatedly, "we were left unheard. We even met with [former U.S. Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice on several issues, but we were still unheard." The Americans put "their interests above democratic values," she added.

The same will happen in Uzbekistan, rights activists fear, making the struggle to promote civil rights there even harder.

Jan Koehler, a researcher at Freie Universitat Berlin who has focused on the social dynamics of the Afghan conflict, believes German troops in Uzbekistan suffer a similar myopia. "It is likely that because of the German supply base in Termez, the German government kept a low profile in criticizing the Uzbek government on its human rights record, particularly after the Andijan events," he said.