The new Great Game: the agenda for XXI century

The independence of the Central Asian states after 1991 revived the Great Game that turned into a term used by specialists of IR- theoreticians and practitioners looked at the system of international interactions in the region. The peculiarity of the new stage of the Great Game is in the composition of the actors (state and non-state), their interests, instruments and strategies. The term “Central Asia” in this paper refers to five former republics of the USSR (set up by the J.Stalin nation building reforms in 1924) – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Although, form the historical and cultural viewpoints, and also from the geopolitical considerations of great powers, the region need more careful definition. /1/

The term Great Game emerged in 1830s to describe the geopolitical competition of Russian and British empires in Afghanistan and adjacent areas, but became popular due to R.Kipling’s novel “Kim”. There are several opinions on the start of the new Great Game: 1) the outbreak of the Cold war in Asia, when the western powers unleashed anti- communist activities under the concept of containment and “domino theory” and created a network of anti-soviet military alliances, the key ones involved Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey; 2) the regime changes in Pakistan and Iran followed the soviet invasion to Afghanistan in 1977-1979; 3) dissolution of the USSR. 1 We consider the outbreak of the New Great Game since the disintegration of the USSR. The Central Asian states were passively involved in the East-West confrontation being part of the military-nuclear and resources systems of the USSR. The independence after 1991 catapulted them into the global politics and forced to take part in the unveiling geopolitical competition for the region. At the same time the regional states have to cope simultaneously with the myriad of domestic problems. The structure of the Great Game metaphor looks as follows: geopolitical struggle for the region between the non-regional actors (originally between Russian and British empires). But it should be noted that the regional structures- indigenous groupings – societies and the states were of little importance for the external actors, that easily neglected them or manipulated depending on the game progress aimed just to include the regional structures into the spheres of their interests. The USSR disintegration opened a new page in the geopolitical history of Central Asia and vast opportunities for old and new actors in the reincarnated Great Game. The term itself was coined by the champion of the Western imperialism R. Kipling to herald a new era in the Western presence in Asia – civilizational, i.e. to save the savage peoples both from their problems and those brought by the white civilizations. What was behind the poetical terminology? The violent struggle for natural and human resources, strategic transit points, political control over the regimes in power (the indigenous and the imposed ones). The crucial events of the first half of the XX century – World War I, Russian revolutions, the danger of the communist expansion after the World War II, “Iron curtain” and Cold war containment froze the plans of some international actors to get control over the strategically important region. After 1991 the western powers rushed into the region in hope to get control over its enormous resources – oil and gas, uranium, transit potential, but the most challenging was the chance to monitor the development of two giants – Russia and China. The power vacuum, seemingly left after the USSR dissolution could be easily filled by the Chinese and Islamic influences. The nation/state building processes, searches of the economic and political models for reforms, civilizations calls from the east and west – for the first decade after 1991 provided fertile ground for experimental games of western powers, Russia, China, Turkey and Islamic countries. But the regimes gradually grew and crafted new face of the region, but the nature of the instability is hidden within the regimes, that veiled themselves under the masks of “Central Asian Switzerland”, new democratic models, etc. What is new about the New Great Game agenda? Beside the geostrategy- control over areas adjacent to Russia, Iran and China and via Afghanistan and Pakistan- access to the Indian ocean, and the land route to the Middle East and its resources, we should consider the civilization choice models in state/nation building (ethnonatonalism, Islamic of secular states), rise of militant Islam and ethnic separatism under different slogans, and non-traditional security threat- poverty, drugs production and trafficking, rise of slave trade, and arms smuggling.

2 Competition for the natural resources – oil, gas and uranium, plus some others like metals and cotton- are in the center of the competition and is used as pretext for deeper involvement in the regional affairs by the external powers. The oil and gas rich countries like Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are in the focus of the regional politics, while others like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan suffer from poverty, and are objects of the other states involvement. The traditional strong actor in the Great Game is Russia that inherited rich legacy since XVIII century. In the Yeltsin times (1990s) Russia lost much of its positions in the regions, but its influence in the region has been growing since the presidency of Vladimir Putin who follows the Eurasianist approach with the strong emphasis on the post-soviet space. /2/ The region provides Russia a solid basis to regain the status of regional power, and control over its strategic resources – oil, gas, and uranium – world monopoly on energy reserves. The only land transit to Europe for the insiders and outsiders in the region allows Russia to dictate the rules of economic survival.

Energy challenges in the Great Game

Despite the importance of the region’s location the major problem is inaccessibility to the Western countries. Transportation system in modern sense- railroads, automobile roads, pipelines were created during the Russian/soviet dominance and served the need to connect the region with the Russian territory and disconnect with the Middle East and China because all of the countries have things to export starting from oil and ending with coal, they all need access to the markets. Problem of inaccessibility of Central Asian states to the Western markets is Soviet transportation routes. Most of the routes go inside the region or if go to Europe, only through Russia.

Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are oil and gas exporting countries which need access to European markets, however due to their geographical location they all became dependent on Russia not only in economical terms but also Russia gets political leverage on these counties, as it happened in Georgian conflicts when Kazakhstan having multi-million acquisitions in Georgia, had to take neutral stance in order not to angry Russia which could have stopped Kazakhstani oil transit through its territory. From the economical perspective Kazakhstan also has big losses, because there are only two major pipelines which do not work in their full capacity because of quota given by the Russian government and Kazakhstani oil has got to be transported by railroads and through sea routes which is more costly and poses environmental danger.

For Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan it is not also so much beneficial to transport their resources through Russian territory, as Gazprom sets discriminatory prices for Turkmen gas. The only thing which Turkmen government has got to do is only to negotiate for higher prices.

3 As Russia plays zero-sum games with its Central Asian neighbors, as the Central Asian countries become dissatisfied with their political and economical benefits, it is time for Western powers to enter the region and provide their own solutions to the competing actors.

US presence in region is visible as one US-backed pipeline has already been built (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan) and another one (Trans-Caspian) is waiting for the moment to start. American interests in region are understandable- the superpower to be should get control over new resource rich and geopolitically important region until competing powers - China and Russia have not yet done it. As USA lost their military base in Kyrgyzstan it will seek for a new country willing to accept US military on its territory.

Geopolitical situation of countries is strategically important because basically it is good way for Americans to be closer to Russia and China; it is a route to the Middle East and Southern Asia.

Greater Middle East and Greater Central Asia

Since 1992 the US Bush and Clinton administrations developed a number of geopolitical projects to make a new map of Eurasia and disconnect Russia from Central Asia. The projects are – “Bigger (Greater) Middle East” and “Greater Central Asia”. /3/ Countries which are included in the “Greater Central Asia” are: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. As they due to their location are transit territories to the North - Russia, East via China to the Asia Pacific, South- via Iran to the Middle East and via Afghanistan- to the India Ocean. Control over the transit routes and along the transit lines- over economic and security development- strategic objective of the American administrations. In fact, in this way the USA and western states under European Union auspices would be able to realize the several times attempted policy to surround Russia, stiffen and force to surrender. So called “anaconda strategy” realization in new geopolitical conditions.

4 Since collapse of the USSR in 1991 Russia for some time (1990s) was unable due to many reasons find enough power to fill the geopolitical vacuum left after its departure, and its was slowly but eagerly penetrated by earlier external actors, the USA, as the most active. But after Putin’s presidency Russia woke up and resumed the projects to promote various geopolitical and geo-economics projects, i.e. economic and energy integration. The Central Asian countries are developing strategies and policies together with Russia and China in SCO and their cooperation is somewhat successful. The course of projects, initiatives and acts is irritating the USA and pushes it away from the region. Therefore, being tasked to worked out a coherent project to renovate US plans to stick

5 to the region and dress them in “attractive clothes” in 2005 the American scholars have developed an idea of "Great Central Asia cooperative partnership for development" which is aimed at assisting Central Asian in promotion of democracy, cooperation in spheres of security and transportation.

However following the September 11 2001, the Americans demonstrated strong interest in putting barriers on the rise of extremism in and from the Central Asia, emphasizing that the region borders with the very dangerous areas which have shaky internal politics such as Afghanistan and China (Eastern Turkestan or XUAR). The central point in the Greater Central Asia is really very close to the regional states interests-democratization of Afghanistan and its development. It would be a great advantage for the Americans too as the local population would be thankful to them and the USA could be the always-invited guests (for example no so many challenges in opening military bases). Afghanistan is considered to be a door to Central Asia which if opened would give free sphere of influence on Central Asian countries starting from southern part- Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

Transportation projects

BTC pipeline Concerning transportation projects the first one is Baku-Tbilisi- Ceyhan (BTC). This project has been totally anticipated by the Russian government who became afraid of loosing its control over the transportation routes as BTC provided oil exporting countries in Caspian region with higher prices for their product and more or less direct exit to the European markets. BTC pipeline would carry oil bypassing Russian territory and therefore loosening its control over the transportation of oil and gas from Caspian region.

A lot of disputes were going around this project since 1998 when in Ankara presidents of Kazakhstan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Uzbekistan joined the BTC pipeline project that in different degrees met their geopolitical interests. The project was strongly backed by the American government as it was seen as the visible and feasible example of the transit alternative for hydrocarbons and first step tin bigger Eurasian transportation corridors scheme. Kazakhstani leadership was strongly persuaded by the American establishment to join BTC as a full

6 member as Azerbaijan did. Besides, various American petroleum companies took part in the project – Chevron 8.9%, ConocoPhillips 2.5% and Hess Corporation 2.36%. Americans have also made sponsorship of the project on behalf of World Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development who covered around 70% of the expenses (Americans have leading and decision-making positions in these organizations). /4/

But BTC route has a number deficiencies- Azeri-Armenian dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh, Georgia relations with Russia over Ossetia and Abkhazia. Summer 2008 Russia-Georgia war showed that Kazakhstan preferred to stay in the sphere of Russian transportation control, as refused to participate in project and it stopped shipping oil to BTC via tankers.

The conflict between Georgia and Russia over Ossetia showed the real balance of powers in the region. Though, due to current economic crisis Kazakhstan should come up new sources of money. Probably shipment through BTC and cooperation with USA and EU are the main answers.

Nabucco and Trans-Caspian Gas Pipelines

Trans-Caspian Gas pipeline is another project proposed by the USA and the EU to bypass Russia and deliver energy resources to the West. This project is aimed to decrease Europe’s dependence on Russia as the main gas supplier. Stability of supplies that to great extent depends on the transit states Russia has bad relations with. For example, recent dispute between Russia and Ukraine over gas transit prices showed how sensitive is the gas market in Europe to fluctuations in Russian-Ukraine politics. The new route would be a good opportunity for the West to open doors of another major projected supplier – gas rich but landlocked Turkmenistan, whose leadership maintains rather independent politics in the potential customers’ choice. Turkmenistan signed a number of important agreements on gas cooperation with Russia, China and Iran. /5/

After the death of Turkmenbashi Saparmurat Niyazov present leader Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov confirmed most of the agreements and more or less opened Turkmen borders to foreigners. Turkmenistan now is in a good

7 strategic position to influence on USA and EU, although it still is considered to be closed.

It will be very good for the Western powers if Turkmenistan would fall under their influence and take Western outlook in gas transit routes. Trans-Caspian pipeline would also make Turkmenistan independent from Russia in decision- making.

For America participation of Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan in the project is very important as it will make them independent from Russian influence, lessen the Chinese presence and eliminate the prospects of Iranian involvement in energy schemes and transit routes.

Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline

This pipeline is a projected route to deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan through Afghanistan territory. The pipeline would open a great opportunity for the prolongation of the legitimacy of United States’ involvement in the stabilization of Afghanistan domestic situation as it might bring financial resources for both- Afghan regime and US companies. Afghan government would receive about 8% of the revenues, as well as create a sense of popular satisfaction from the American presence in the country and around under the pretext to combat the Taliban. /6/

US ally in the South Asian region – Pakistan will get the needy resources, and energy supplies to India might help it to counterbalance China striving to fully control the India ocean main lanes from Asia Pacific to the Middle East and African coastline.

The strategic location and natural resources of the Central Asia (the most important are hydrocarbons) forced the major world powers to launch a geopolitical rivalry to get control over key positions in transit lanes. Russian created transportation routes that close the region to its European part became serious handicap for the regional states in their plans to get profitable positions in the global economic system as suppliers of natural resources. Russia till recently ahs been a influential power to dominate the region’s transportation system against the interests of USA, as a case.

The USA and EU are developing transportation routes which would enable Central Asian states to be flexible in their decision making (August 2008 Central

8 Asian states agreed with Russia rather than with the West). USA’s major project which proved its viability is BTC, but there are two more projects on the way – Nabucco (Trans-Caspian pipeline) and Trans-Afghanistan pipeline.

For Americans building of transportation routes is important as Central Asian countries would have alternatives in making their choices in foreign policy. BTC showed its credibility as Azerbaijan and Georgia took pro-Western orientation. According to “Greater Central Asia” plan building transportation networks is one of the major steps in turning Central Asian countries towards West. Transportation map for the region might seriously change the map of Eurasia and positions of the intra and extra actors. The XXI century geopolitics depends on control over energy resources and transit routes.

The role of the USA in the Great Game II

The USA was a newcomer to the geopolitical competition in the region after 1991, but it does not mean that the region was outside the US global geopolitical interests. To be correct, it was beyond the reach, being under the soviet iron and nuclear shield. The active stage of the US politics in the region was marked by president B.Clinton through series of diplomatic contacts and economic initiatives. The basis was created by Freedom Support Act of 1992 that viewed the Central Asia states (as well as all former soviet republics) as potential members of the democratic community with market economies. The USA emphasized the promotion of democracy and market reforms first, and employed the multilateral mechanisms – Central Asian economic community and Partnership for Peace Program. /7/ The energy resources of the Caspian Sea became a serious incentive to seek ways to get involved deeper in the region and minimize the chances of Russia return. The biggest US transnational oil companies fueled a number of US geopolitical projects in the Caspian Sea areas – Central Asia, Caucasus and Iran. The US deputy state secretary S.Talbott in 1997 explained why the regional countries are in urgent need of US support to establish democratic societies. /8/ He stressed that access to the regional oil and gas reserves are essential for US vitality./9/ Since 1993-1994 the USA reached a number of energy agreements with Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, as major oil rich states. The uncoordinated and conflicting actions of US agencies in 1992-1996 prevented the realization of US interests in the region, and only since 1996 when the National Security Council was authorized to orchestrate the agencies activities and concentrated on security challenges to energy resources of the Caspian Sea. /10/ The stress was made on the areas adjacent to Russia and Iran. Thus, since 1996 the energy factor dominated the US agenda in the region and ranged from the economic aid through energy development projects to transportation and military programs.

9 The major obstacle to enlargement of the US presence in the region was Russia, and the US administrations developed a number of initiatives to undermine it and create stable links with some states. Kazakhstan was the first regional state to get involved into the US projects- from denuclearization to energy projects. /11/ the US interests are quite understandable in the context of the American global strategy and plans to undermine the rising Russian and Chinese influences in the region and in global affairs in general. The reserves of the Caspian Sea could be an efficient instrument in the global oil market control competition. The political instability in the Middle East and North Africa (recent cases of Tunisia and Egypt) might seriously affect the global oil market due to rising prices and blockade of major arteries- the Suez Canal and the straits from the red Sea and the Persian Gulf. The Caspian oil and the land route are thus of great significance. The global oil consumption grows from day to day. /12/ The proven reserves of the Kazakhstan energy potential are from 10 tо 17,6 bln. barrels of oil to 53 - 83 trl. cubic meters of natural gas. Turkmenistan also has 98 tо 115 trl. cubic meters of proven reserves of natural gas. The US security plans for Central Asia are part and parcel of the global and Eurasian geopolitical strategies - creation of unipolar world and prevention of the rise of China and Russia as major geopolitical rivals in Eurasia. In broad term, it can be divided into 2 major periods – since 1991 to September 11, 2001, and since the launch of the Enduring Freedom operation in Afghanistan. In the first period the US administration succeeded in the development of the oil transportation system bypassing Russia – Baku- Tbilisi- Ceyhan and abrogation of the Iranian route used by Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. /13/ Moreover, the US administration was cautious about the Chinese route, that could be counter- productive for geoconomic and geostrategic interests of the USA, increasing the geopolitical potential of China- America geopolitical rival in Asia. The security system creation projects in the region that the US administration started developing since early 1990s included the multilateral and bilateral cooperation. /14/ Since 1994 the regional states (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan) joined the NATO Partnership for Peace Program that could lead to further isolation of Russia from the region. /15/ In December 1995 the USA supported creation of the Central Asian peacekeeping battalion formed by Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan to provide stability and peace in the region (Tajikistan joined in 2002). Since late 1990s the USA initiated a number of joint military drills in the region within the framework of PfP Program (Nagget and Osprey), Program of international military education (IMET) and under the bilateral security cooperation agreements. In May 1999 the US Congress adopted “The Silk road strategy” that re- emphasized the geostrategic and geoeconomic significance of the region for the US global interests. /16/ The US administration confirmed the intention to counteract spread of Islamic radicalism in region by military means.

10 Anti-terrorist operations in the region was supported by the USA, especially in Uzbekistan, that saw an outburst of Islamic activities, imported from abroad and fueled by domestic situation. The summer 1999 Islamic incursions to Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan forced the Pentagon to rearrange the zones of responsibility between the command structures in the Caspian Sea zone, and Central Asia fell under the Central Command (CENTCOM) to strengthen and consolidate military cooperation with the regional states. One of the effects was creation in 2000 of the Central Asian Border Security Initiative by the USA, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan to combat the terrorist threat. Since 1998 “westernization” of security issues and oil development on the Caspian Sea (reincarnation of the energy Silk Road) proved that geopolitical interests dominated the commercial benefits in the U.S. policy in the region. /17/ Thus, after September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the USA could come to the region based on the military cooperation with the regional states. The official agenda of the US administration after September 11, 2001 presence in Central Asia security (combat against terrorism and drugs); energy issues and domestic reforms. “Our policy must include the commitments of deeper, long-term and better coordinated participation in the settlement of broad specter of issues”, - declared the US deputy State Secretary on Europe and Eurasia, E.Jones on October 29, 2003. /18/ American engagement in war in Afghanistan increased the Central Asian significance considerably due to the access problems. The US government allocated more financial aid to the regional states. The Quadrennial Defense Plan (October 2001) outlined the key principles of US security issues that required development of diplomatic, military and economic relations with the Central Asia states, as part of the “instability belt”. The US administration stressed the need to provide access to the strategic resources and key markets. In December 2001 the US Senate adopted the decision to create a Special Subcommittee on Central Asia issues. The regional states for economic and strategic reasons agreed to join the international operation in Afghanistan, some of them, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, provided base sites; others- exchanged intelligence data and access to the air space. Tajikistan that has 120 km border with Afghanistan proved to be useful for the operations against Taliban. After special permit obtained from Moscow, Tajikistan provided air corridors and territory for military units. Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan allowed limited access to their airdromes. As a response, the US financial aid grew twice- from $110,5 mln. in 2000 to $ 230 mln. in 2001; and in 2002 the figure grew to $ 594 mln. /19/ Further US administration initiatives envisaged increase of financial aid under different names to developing countries, as well as to Сentral Asian. /20/ War against terror opened for the USA and regional states a unique opportunity to challenge the Russian geopolitical presence in Central Asia, and balance between big 3- USA, Russia and China. Long-term military presence of the USA in the region is counter-productive or destructive, as it erodes and undermines the historical balance of regional states, and their international connections, mainly

11 with Russia, China and Iran, and provokes the external actors to greater competition, as well as creates serious challenges to security situation development.

Challenge 1: regional destabilization provocation

Secular regimes in the region that smoothly transferred from the soviet period, despite the ongoing reforms are not capable to cope with numerous domestic problems. Authoritarianism, corruption culture and economy at all levels, violation of human rights, no rule of law, polarization of population, erosion of identity and police methods of control over society have been widely criticized from inside and outside. The Muslim criticism has become the most serious challenge as it fuels development of radical Islamic organizations, with strong international support. The US administration takes measures to help the regional elites in eradication of the terrorist roots, even through economic aid. But to great extent, it leads to cooperation of the regional elites with the USA, but poor effects in domestic stabilization. The policy of dual standards, the US administration,, follows in the region, create fertile conditions for criticism of both US involvement and regional elites. In case of need, the US officials ignore the human rights violation facts. The US administration exaggerated too much the danger of terrorism; as for the population of the regional states it is the only available channel to mobilize the opposition to challenge the ruling elites under the banner of traditional values and Islam. Poverty, rising crime rate, drugs are much more serious problems. But the regimes prefer to follow the US line, as it brings feasible aid and legalizes the struggle against any type of opposition. Serious reforms in economic and political spheres are postponed until the war against terror in not over. Institutional and democratic reforms cannot be replaced by security and financial aid to the regimes in power. US military presence can be a provocative factor for criticism of elites and domestic instability. The US version of democracy conflicts in many ways with traditional system of values in regional societies, especially the religious ones. Ongoing war against Islamic extremism and terrorism concerns the religious leaders, and they mobilize more and more proponents of traditional and radical Islam in their ranks. The US administration listed some oppositional religious organization as the major threat to international community, mostly to please the regional leadership, like in case of Uzbekistan. I.Karimov, president of Uzbekistan, due to US support could successfully balance between Big Three and until Andijon events of 2005 got the lion share of financial aid allocated to the regional states- 41 % or $161.8 mln. out of 394.1 mln. /21/ The US policy of favorites and clients creation out of the regional states and exploitation of their domestic and external problems is very counter-productive. American favoritism to some Central Asia states and selected approach/negligence to the hot issues in the regional politics creates more contradictions and fertile basis for conflicts over water, illegal drug trafficking, ethnic minorities and territorial disputes.

12 The balance of power in the region is shaky due to the preferential policy of support to some regimes as a payment for their agreement to host American military bases. The Uzbek government until Andijon events (2005) seemed to be secure and protected despite the serious domestic economic and social crisis and criticism. When the USA voiced the protest after Andijon events, I.Karimov employed Russian and Chinese leverages to get away from the USA and demanded the withdrawal of US troops from the country. The US approach to central Asian stability can be productive for a short-tem perspective, as in the long run it provokes non-state actors to challenge the US presence and legitimacy.

Challenge #2: US politics in Central Asia as a provocation to great powers competition

The traditional great powers in the region- Russia and China do not feel as ease on the US strategic games in the region, and develop counter-strategy. Unprecedented military power in Central Asia since the outbreak of the Operation Enduring Freedom is a bright illustration of the US strategic interests. Due to that fact the region turned into a critical geopolitical region. As of August 2010, there were 98.000 US military personnel in Afghanistan. /22/ Russian and China suspicious and jealous on the US military presence and growing security cooperation with the regional states will play muscles and exaggerate the situation. Opening of military bases was dictated by the military and security needs for the Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan against the Taliban movement and Al-Qaeda. Establishment of a new regime in Afghanistan and normalization of relations with some warlords in different provinces in Afghanistan seemed did not signal the end of US engagement into afghan and regional affairs. The historical experience proves that USA practice long-tem military presence in the areas they once launch declared the zones of strategic interest – Western Europe, Balkans, Japan, South Korea, Persian Gulf. Although the US officials stress that the American administration does not plan prolongation of military presence in Afghanistan when the major objectives of the operation are over, the plans of the troops withdrawals have not yet voiced. /23/ Location of US bases in Central Asia does not meet the declared objectives to destroy Taliban and Al-Qaeda centers of resistance. Earlier in 2002 top American officials – Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretaty, stated that: Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has said that building air bases and conducting joint training exercises with local troops will "send a message to everybody, including important countries like Uzbekistan that ... we're not just going to forget about them." This sentiment has been echoed by Colin Powell, who told the House International Relations Committee in early February that "America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before."/24/

13 Russian reaction to US presence was quite predictable- in October 2003 president V.Putin led the ceremony of airbase opening in Kant, several kilometers from Manas airport, the US base. Widening of the American military presence will not be tolerated by Russia and China, that have long borders with the regional states, and view Central Asia as their backyard. The USA would not tolerate under the Monroe doctrine any external presence in the western hemisphere. Although, we cannot state that American and Russian interests are opposite, both want stability and predictability- Islamic threat (for Russia it is actual due to Chechnya and Dagestan). Russian is interested in not only sharing the region (unacceptable), but also reserving the right to get back in the areas now under American presence- Baltic region, Caucasus, and Ukraine. In the light of delaying the American (as well as other NATO countries’ military personnel) troops withdrawal from the region, and no clear schedule for that, Moscow is getting more and more alarmed by development of other plans the US administrations have been working out- isolation of Russia from the regions important for the energy transit and access to the seas and oceans. The Russian administration considered that the USA will not criticize it for the campaigns in Caucasus. /26/ In 2002 and 2003 Russia went closer to the countries of the Axis of evil (in the American designation) – Iran, North Korea and initiated series of security and energy agreements with the Central Asian states. By 2004 the relations between Russia and USA instead of cooperation in the region evolved into the sharp competition. Thus, growing American presence in the region might lead to the deterioration of bilateral relations, and provoke a number of other related competitive initiatives. China is also concerned with the western presence in the region, adjacent to it’s rebellious Muslim province- Xinxiang Uigur Autonomous Region. Although, Beijing did not protest against the NATO and US campaign to fight the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, as it met its domestic problem, as times goes on, the Chinese leadership grows more and more intolerant. /27/ The US -NATO presence might be viewed as a gradual encirclement of China by western states. Beijing revises the security agenda and is alarmed by the challenge that its ideological foundation is under threat. Measures taken by the Chinese side- intensification of economic and energy contacts with the Central Asia, securitization of the XUAR and border issues, activization of the military security issues measures in the SCO. /28/ Challenge #3 uncontrollable domestic instability in the regional states caused by a number of reasons, inherent to the region and provoked from outside.

1) Authoritarian regimes in power in the regional states are a serious challenge for the countries and their population, and twice in Kyrgyzstan it led to the regime changes- so called Color Revolutions (A.Akayev and K.Bakiev had to leave their posts as result of the population discontent and the bloody events that

14 followed) with very few prospects for positive development. All the regional leaders (except for the president of Tajikistan E.Rakhmonov) were communist apparatchiks. The secular regimes in power are developing their models of state/nation building, as well specific forms of Islam- etatist versions, adapting Islam for their political needs of power maintenance and control over the population, not the needs of the populace majority living in poverty, without any hope for better future. The western experts consider that there are no conditions for the democratic development, that is explained by the paternalistic culture and even history revision issues concern more with the choices in favor of the great conquerors as Chingizkhan (Kazakhstan) and Tamerlan (Uzbekistan). /29/ The regional cultures are full of the traditions and norms of military and political victories through intrigues and conquest, economic superiority. The years of Russian and soviet control reinforced them. But the western governments- American, the European Union and Russian follow double standards in interpreting what is going on the region. When it meets their geopolitical objectives- the regimes are severely criticized, the investment flows are blocked, and military aid delayed; but when the security agenda is pressing – the regimes are flattered and called the islands of democracy (Kazakhstan) or a specific model of the democracy path (Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan). “Positively neutral” Turkmenistan with a unique form of political and cultural development is beyond any criticism, as it is rich of gas and can play games balancing between USA, Russia and China due to its location between Russia, Iran and Afghanistan. 2) Poor economic situation and reprisals of any forms of social protest lead to rise of the open and hidden protests, sometimes in form of the Islamic fundamentalism, that fuels the people’s protest by the criticism of the regimes from the position of Koran. /30/ Although the potential Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan was seriously damaged during the operation “Enduring Freedom”, it still has many supporters operating underground in the Fergana valley, that is shared between Uzbekistan, South Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. It is the most populous (over 10 mln.) and poorest areas of the region (80 % of population is unemployed and live below the poverty level), prone to different forms of protests. The ranks of the religious protests movements were traditionally filled by the residents of the Fergana valley. 3) The Central Asian countries are producers, transit route and consumers of the drugs from Afghanistan to Europe via Russia, to China (via XUAR) and to the Middle East –via Iran. Poverty, corruption, criminalization of all spheres of life- from the bottom to the upper echelons of power structures, high crime rate, absence of the sound program to combat and eliminate the reasons for drugs spread (war on poverty or corruption) are fertile ground for the regional destabilization. / 31/ 4) Endless war in Afghanistan is still the lasting security issue for the region. Despite the fact that Taliban regime was ousted, the numerous Taliban related groupings operate in the Afghan provinces, and are fueled – financially, technically, ideologically and by human resources from the neighboring states. The plans for post-Taliban stabilization are not successful. In fact, the country is

15 divided between the NATO-member states and they are responsible for the pacification and normalization, but drugs are still being produced and trafficked via the region. /32/ By 2000 the number of drug users in the region grew many times due not only to Afghan opium but by the opening of a great number of laboratories of synthetic drug production. In the absence of economic development and sound state structures to fight drugs, like in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan (living mostly legally on the remittances of labor migrants and foreign aid, and illegally- corruption and drugs business), the situation urgently needs the coordinated international actions. Moreover, the Islamic militants are sponsored not only by foreign actors, but collect most of their resources from the drugs business. /33/ Competition for the control over the drugs routes from Afghanistan was one of the chief reasons for the violence outbreak in Kyrgyzstan in spring 2010, when the regime of K.Bakiev was ousted. /34/

Conclusion

The post-1991 situation in Central Asia is a good example of how traditional geopolitical issues-lie Great game competition of the mid XIX century are revived in the global agenda of the great powers in XX century due to the unending interests to control certain strategically important areas. Multi-level and multi- faceted security issues of great external powers are closely linked to domestic problems (poverty, corruption, failed states, Islamic revival) that make the situation more and more challenging and unpredictable. The external and regional states have to tackle (but in most cases are unwilling) to settle their differences, or just ignore the problem if it is on the way. The regimes tend to employ the security agenda to fight the domestic unrest (in various forms – Islamic, non-governmental organization activities, oppositional parties and their leaders, mass media) but not the solve the problems by fighting corruption and poverty and creating better conditions for the people to realize their potential. The New Great Game is just unveiling, and is very far from being won by any of the participants. The complex composition of the participants- global powers and regional states, as well non-state actors (Like Islamic movements) and the host of problems involved make the game progress very twisty. Until the regional states come to the compromise on what should be their external orientation and coordinate their efforts to solve many bilateral problems and domestic troubles, the external states will manipulate them, as it would meet their interests and geopolitical plans.

References: 1. Menon Raja. The New Great Game in Central Asia. Survival. 2003. Vol.45, No.2, Summer. P.187-204. Also in: Edwards Matthew. The New Great Game and the New Great Gamers: Disciples of Kipling and Mackinder. Central Asian Survey. 2003. Vol.22, March. P. 83-102.

16 2.Johnson Lena, Vladimir Putin and Central Asia: The Shaping of Russian Foreign Policy (Culture and Society in Western and Central Asia). I. B. Tauris, 2004. 3.Perthes, V., 2004, America's "Greater Middle East" and Europe: Key Issues for Dialogue, Middle East Policy, Volume XI, No.3, Pages 85-97. 4. Rasizade Alic, The Bush administration ans the Caspian Oil pipeline. // http://www.ancsf.org/files/essaysanalysis/The_Bush_Administration_and_the_Cas pian_Oil_Pipeline.pdf 5. Nicola Stefan, Analysis: Europe’s pipeline war// http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2008/02/05/Analysis-Europes- pipeline-war/UPI-24561202258576/ and see also Lindsey, A (2008, September 02). Seeking A Way Forward On Trans-Caspian Pipeline. Retrieved August 14, 2009, from Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty Web site: http://www.rferl.org/content/Seeking_Way_Forward_On_TransCaspian_Pipeline/1 195765.html 6. TIMELINE OF OIL AND VIOLENCE. AFGHANISTAN.// http://ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm 7. Luong, Pauline Jones and Erika Weinthal. New Friends, New Fears in Central Asia. Foreign Affairs. 2002. Vol.81, No.2, March-April. P.61. 8. Talbott Strobe. A Farewell to Flashman: American Policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Address at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Washington, DC, 21 July 1997. 9. Blank Stephen. The United States and Central Asia. In: Central Asian Security, the New International Context. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2000. P.130. 10. Hill Fiona. Une strategie incertaine: la politique des Etats-Unis dans le Caucase et en Asie centrale. Politique Etrangere. 2001. Fevrier, No.1. P. 95–108. 11. Wishnick Elizabeth. The Growing U.S. Security Interests in Central Asia. Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. 2002, October. P.3. 12. Cordesman, Anthony H. The U.S. Government View of Energy Developments in the Caspian, Central Asia, and Iran. W.: Center for Strategic and International Studies. 2000, April 27. See also the reports of the Ministry of Energy of the USA: US Department of Energy, DOE for the years from 1998: http://www.eia.doe.gov.emeu/cabs/caspgrph.html. See also: Chossudovsky, M (2008, August 22). The Eurasian Corridor: Pipeline Geopolitics and The New Cold War. Retrieved August 14, 2009, from Global Research Web site: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9907 13. Nichol Jim. Central Asia’s New States: Political Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests. Issue Brief for U.S. Congress. Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division. Congressional Research Service. 2003, April. P.14. 14. National Security Strategy for a New Century. Washington, DC: White House. 1999, December. See also the law: The Silk Road Strategy Act. 1999, 106 th Congress, 1st Session, P. 1–5. 15. Butler Kenley. U.S. Military Cooperation with the Central Asian States. Monterey Institute of International Studies. 2001, September 17.

17 16. Vassort-Rousset, Brigitte. The U.S. Silk Road Strategy: American Geostrategy For Central Asia. ARES. 2003. No.50, January. 17. Brzezinski Z. The Grand Chessboard. NY: Harper Collins Publishers, Basic Books. 1997. 18. State’s Jones Testifies on U.S. Policy Towards Central Asia. U.S. Department of State, Testimony for House Subcommittee. 2003, October 29. 19. Millenium Challenge Account Update. USAID Fact Sheet. 2002, June 3. 20. Central Asia : Community Action Investment Program. U.S. Department of State Fact Sheet. 2002, July 11. 21. U.S. Assistance to Central Asia. U.S. Department of State Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Fact Sheets. 2002. (http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/c5738.htm). 22. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments 23. Blank S. U.S. Strategic Priorities Shifting in Central Asia. Eurasia Insight. 2004, 25 March. (http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav032504a-pr.shtml) 24. Duskin E. Permanent Installation. Thousands of U.S. troops are headed for Central Asia. And they're not leaving anytime soon.// http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Central_Asia_watch/Permanent_Installation.ht ml 25. Kazio Taras. The U.S.-Russian Strategic Partnership: Permanent Fixture or Temporary Marriage of Convenience? Central Asian Insight. 2001, December 4; 26. Blank, Stephen. Putin’s Twelve-Step Program. Washington Quarterly. 2001. Vol.25, No.1. P. 147. 27. Gao Fuqiu. The real purpose of the American march into Central Asia. Liaoang. 2002, May 10. //http://www.uscc.gov/works.htm 28. Rashid Ahmed. Jihad, The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia. London: Yale University Press, 2002. P.205. В 2002 г. Китай и Киргизия провели совместные учения в районе общей границы. Blua Antoine. Central Asia: Report Calls on U.S. To Rethink its Regional Approach. Eurasia Insight. 2004, February 22. http:// www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav022204- pr.shtml. 29. Maynes Charles William. America discovers Central Asia. Foreign Affairs. 2003, March-April. P. 131. 30. Tabyshalieva A. Human rights and Democratization in Central Asia after September 11. Nordic Newsletter of Asian Studies. 2002, No.3; Khamidov A. Regional experts call on U.S. to bolster civil society. Eurasia Insight. 2002, October 2; Starr Frederick, Clans, authoritarian rulers and parliaments in Central Asia // http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/Silkroadpapers/0605Starr_Clans.pdf 31. UNODC report on drugs in Central Asia // http://www.unodc.org/centralasia/index.html 32. Rasizade Alec, The new great Game in Central Asia after Afghanistan // http://www.alternativesjournal.net/volume1/number2/rasizade.htm

18 33. Cornell Svante E., Swanstrom Niklas L.P., The Eurasian Drug Trade // Problems of Post-Communism. July-August 2006, p. 19. 34. Kyrgyzstan Uprising 2010 //http://www.historyguy.com/Kyrgyzstan_uprising_2010.htm

19