Foreign Policy of under and

Yaşar SARI* Abstract

There is a clear link between a state’s domestic international system and subsystems, and situation - where policy is formulated and made foreign policy and domestic politics. (called foreign policy making), and its external environment, in which policy is implemented (called foreign policy behavior). In post-Soviet Key Words states in Central Asia, such as Kyrgyzstan, the states are operating their foreign policies Foreign Policy Analysis, Kyrgyzstan, Askar in conditions of enormous structural change, Akayev, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, Multi-Vector uncertainty and lack of experience, stemming Foreign Policy, Two-Level Game. from the fact of having only recently established their own independence following the collapse of the . Changes in the international Introduction system and regional subsystems have also pushed them toward limited choices and An effective way of understanding the certain idiosyncratic foreign policy behaviors. Furthermore, these states have entered into new foreign policy process is to identify the alliances following the September 11 events, levels of analysis. These levels refer to played roles in new conflicts (in Afghanistan general areas from which certain foreign and Iraq - the War on Terror), and sought policy behaviors are generated within assistance and protection from global and a state, and at which foreign policy regional powers that had previously been inaccessible. This paper attempts to explain the relations occur between states. With the foreign policy of Kyrgyzstan from 1991 to 2010. recognition that foreign policy behavior Robert Putnam’s model of the “two-level game” occurs both at state and interstate levels, approach is used to explain Kyrgyz foreign we can differentiate between two distinct policy, based on the relationships between the approaches to explain the foreign policy * Yasar Sari is Assistant Professor at the process of a state: 1) the role of certain Department of International Relations, Abant internal factors and actors; and 2) the Izzet Baysal University, Bolu. Currently he is a role of external factors and actors. Such visiting Assistant Professor at the Department of International Relations in Kyrgyzstan- approaches are required to identify the Turkey Manas University. sources of its foreign policy.

131 PERCEPTIONS, Autumn 2012, Volume XVII, Number 3, pp. 131-150. Yaşar Sarı

When a state decides to respond to a set state institutions; power struggles among of factors (location, military capability, different political groups to control the economic power, natural resource, etc.), state; and the economic condition of its leaders and ruling elites as actors take the Central Asian states. External factors certain actions. This occurs especially refer to areas that arise beyond state when a state is initiating a foreign policy boundaries, such as the regional political action, as well as when responding to the settings and the international system. actions of other states. One needs first They also lead to specific foreign policy to conceptualize a mechanism for how choices. Such factors have shaped the to initiate foreign policy action and how orientation and implications of Central to respond to another state’s action, and Asian states’ foreign policies in the last then conduct inquiries into the internal twenty years. and external sources of foreign policy decision-making.1 The Kyrgyz government has struggled to control, govern, Therefore, there and contain the are primarily two The Kyrgyz government has distinct sources struggled to control, govern, political elites and of foreign policy: and contain the political elites the ethnic groups within its borders, internal and and the ethnic groups within and has dealt with external sources - its borders, and has dealt with internal threats actors and factors. internal threats from these Internal sources from these groups refer to domestic groups since the late 1990s. since the late 1990s. factors and actors Demonstrations that are helpful in and protests against generating a foreign policy approach. the central government had escalated Among the internal actors are the into bloody clashes and two political individual leaders, the ruling elites, regime changes. These internal threats and the ethnic minorities. The external also shaped its foreign policy approach. actors that influence the foreign policy In addition to these, changes in the making processes of the Central Asian international system have created new states have evolved differently from that regional environments, such as the War of powerful states such as and on Terror in Afghanistan. In doing the United States. These contribute to so, the increased level of international the articulation and the adoption of a involvement in the region created new specific foreign policy approach. Internal opportunities and restrictions to the factors are: political instability; weak foreign policy of Kyrgyzstan.

132 Foreign Policy of Kyrgyzstan under Askar Akayev and Kurmanbek Bakiyev

Theoretical Framework routines and bargaining processes with each other. Thus, because of the lack of Robert Putnam’s renowned article strong bureaucratic traditions in newly that formulated the “two-level games” established small states, the bureaucratic- portrayed leaders as being positioned organizational model is considered to between the “two tables” of international be of little relevance in explaining their negotiation and the pressures of domestic foreign policies. In addition, because political forces such as its bureaucracies.2 the state itself cannot be assumed to be In his article Putnam underlined the a unitary actor, responding primarily to importance of considering foreign policy external threats and opportunities, the making and actions as not only part of behaviors of decision-makers become foreign politics itself but also of domestic one of the most important variables in politics. understanding foreign policy actions of small states. One of the models for connecting the foreign policy making process to domestic politics is the bureaucratic-organizational The roles of large departments/ model.3 However, bureaucracy and the ministries and the routines of bureaucratic structure are likely to be less administrative procedures are prominent in the foreign policies of new closely interlinked in the foreign states, because bureaucracy is still weak policies of major powers, but and small compared to that of powerful less so in new and small states. states such as the United States, , and Russia. In other words, the roles of large departments/ministries and the The main argument in this paper is that routines of administrative procedures the scope of a small weak state’s foreign are closely interlinked in the foreign policy actions depends on the type of policies of major powers, but less so in threats, the level of external commitment, new and small states. Thus, it is clear and the characteristics of its leadership. that the insights of bureaucratic and A two-stage analysis can address some organizational models to the foreign critical questions, since international policy making of new small states are threats and opportunities are often limited. One of the reasons is that ambiguous, and domestic processes are these states do not have the stability crucial to explaining the foreign policy to establish and/or manage stable of small weak states. This model is based bureaucratic institutions. Moreover, on the traditional understanding of the existing institutions in these states do limited resources and power possessed by not develop complex organizational small weak states.

133 Yaşar Sarı

It is true that the security of small weak the foreign policy of a weak state.7 states does ’suffer’ from greater sensitivity, Domestic institutions play important vulnerability4 and dependence from roles because they shape and provide both the immediate regional and wider possible options, which the government international environments. This makes implements. Thus, the weaker the state, it ever more important for small weak the more likely it is to respond to external states to have a well thought through challenges and attempt to balance foreign policy, using all instruments at against rising hegemons. Because of their their disposal to ensure that their security diminished capabilities relative to others, and interests are best served. Due to their weak states lack a margin of error; they position within the system, weaker states must be closely integrated and linked to will take their positions and roles in the the external environment because if they international system for granted because isolate themselves their survival will be their presence is insignificant in regards at stake, and the costs of being exploited to international outcomes. Furthermore, are high - as was true of Islam Kerimov’s because major states will not focus their Uzbekistan in 2001. Therefore, because attention on potential threats from small of the nature of the threat, governments weak states that are likely to pose little of weak states experiencing internal threat, the latter may face fewer external threats will have different foreign policy constraints.5 Thus, this two-step analysis behaviors to end internal threats.8 requires scholars to understand foreign Another factor that explains foreign policy sources and decision-making policy behavior is the beliefs and interests 6 processes. of its leaders. Leaders can easily exploit the link between their own security and The foreign policy of a small that of the state in order to increase weak state may be shaped more their leverage over domestic politics. directly by domestic threats or For instance, Askar Akayev became the may sacrifice national interests leader of Kyrgyzstan after the political to that of its leadership. crisis and the -Uzgen clash between the Kyrgyz and the Uzbeks in 1990. He Miriam Elman suggests that internal accumulated power and authority and factors - domestic politics and domestic became the sole authority in Kyrgyzstan. institutional choices - are more important Thus, by undertaking to deal with threats than external factors - international leaders can increase their own powers and regional systems - in explaining and make use of these powers against their domestic opponents.9

134 Foreign Policy of Kyrgyzstan under Askar Akayev and Kurmanbek Bakiyev

Therefore, in newly independent small competing for influence in the foreign states, identity (of the state or the leader), policy formation, and in most cases were power (the state strength) and interests mutually responsible for the formulations (threats to the state/leadership) must be of foreign policies, although ultimately brought together at the domestic level, as the President decided the foreign policy well as at the international level, to fulfill direction of the country.10 Putnam’s theory to explain the foreign policy of a newly established weak state, such as Kyrgyzstan. The foreign policy When the region assumed of a small weak state may be shaped a lesser significance in the more directly by domestic threats or international arena, the foreign may sacrifice national interests to that of policy behavior of Kyrgyzstan its leadership. An understanding of the has been linked primarily to foreign policy behaviors of a small state, domestic politics. therefore, requires the analysis of how state strength affects its foreign policy and the decision-making process. Other institutions, groups and agencies with an interest in the foreign Kyrgyz Foreign Policy in policy formation include: Ministries of General Defence and Security; the Parliament (Jogorku Kenesh); and political parties By 1992, as with all newly independent and private businesses. However, in the Central Asian states, Kyrgyzstan formed Kyrgyz case, their participation in the its own foreign policy structures, which foreign policy making process was neither were similar to that of Russia. A Ministry clearly defined nor institutionalized. This of Foreign Affairs was responsible is despite the fact that the Parliament for the realization of foreign policy, has the constitutional power to “define everyday foreign policy activities and major directions of internal and external the management of diplomatic missions policies”, while ministers, including abroad. In addition to the Ministry, the foreign minister, generally require under the Presidential Administration, their position to be confirmed by the a separate foreign policy body called parliament.11 the ‘International Department of the Presidential Administration’ was Therefore, decisions, concerning not established. From the outset these only foreign policy, are generally made two major institutions were actively in accordance with two important

135 Yaşar Sarı

institutional constraints. First of all, the domain of foreign policy is normally the president makes decisions on major reserved for a few trusted individuals, and foreign policies of Kyrgyzstan. Secondly, in some cases effective decisions are made government, primarily the Ministry solely by one leader. Such practices have of Foreign Affairs, implements these become increasingly common within the decisions. For example, in Kyrgyzstan region. For instance, Akayev and Bakiyev the constitution and the “Law on the obviously exercised considerable personal Diplomatic Service” state the legal role authority in the making of foreign policy of state institutions in the foreign policy decisions without any significant degree making and implementing processes.12 of institutional, political, or popular control over their decisions and actions.14 The existence of articles in its constitution and the law, however, offers Kyrgyz ruling elites implemented only a partial understanding of the different foreign policies to reach the foreign policy directions of Kyrgyzstan. same goal, i.e., to use foreign policy in In addition to the legal designs, there are order to maintain internal political order also unwritten rules that go beyond legal and possess critical external support documentations. These are politically for their domestic positions. Indeed, complex organizational routines, and many external relationships established bargaining processes among different by the Kyrgyzstan government have bureaucratic institutions, traditions and constituted, above all, access to a source customs. As for Kyrgyzstan, as with other of balancing power to contain internal Central Asian states, these traditions and challenges and threats. In other words, customs have yet to come in existence. the Kyrgyz foreign policy frequently rises Therefore, institutional designs for their out of a need to strengthen the domestic foreign policies are missing. These gaps political order as well as the personal are filled by their powerful presidents needs of the president. and their entourages. Furthermore, since independence, Central Asian states have the Kyrgyzstan has been burdened by the very overwhelming political superiority of same problems that other transitional leaders who control the state mechanism states have faced, i.e., political disorder, over any other organized source of power defining a new identity, economic within the political system. For this shocks, and ethnic or economic reason, decision-making processes were minorities who do not accept the totally controlled by their leaders.13 In sovereignty of the central state. Another other words, within Central Asian states, factor is that both the administrative

136 Foreign Policy of Kyrgyzstan under Askar Akayev and Kurmanbek Bakiyev structure and the borders of Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyz Foreign Policy under were determined in the Stalinist President Askar Akayev era. Therefore, Kyrgyzstan’s national boundaries and ethnic composition Kyrgyzstan, like other post-Soviet lacked correspondence with its titular states, has faced many political, nationalities, which caused potential or economic and social problems, from real threats to the country’s sovereignty the necessity of state/nation-building and internal and external policies. to the urgency of economic reforms. However, foreign policy issues in Being an independent state meant taking responsibilities as a sovereign state in the Kyrgyzstan have never been determined international community, as well as being solely by domestic factors. Once at the responsible to its own citizens. In order crossroads of empires and conquering to be part of the international system peoples, Kyrgyzstan remains at a and its community, Kyrgyzstan had to geographic point of competition between develop certain relationships with other major powers and potential turmoil. In states and international organizations. short, external factors are also critical to In other words, it had to have a foreign any analysis of Kyrgyz foreign policies. policy. For example, after the September 11, It was a very difficult task at the 2001 incident, Kyrgyzstan became the beginning because the geopolitical and focus of competing interests of major geo-economic situation of Kyrgyzstan powers; this development provided complicated the development of an opportunities for self-interested leaders, independent foreign policy. Therefore, for example, Akayev, to bring the United Kyrgyzstan introduced a multi-vector States into the equation to balance foreign policy. The Kyrgyz authorities Russian influence in the region. In these accepted this policy not only because they circumstances, when the Central Asian wanted to, but also because the realities region assumed more significance in dictated it. Akayev and his advisors global terms, the foreign policy behavior understood that both international and of Kyrgyzstan has been linked primarily regional systems provide opportunities to external politics.15 Likewise, the for Kyrgyzstan. Akayev also realized that opposite is also true. When the region as a small and newly independent state, assumed a lesser significance in the Kyrgyzstan required friendly relations international arena, the foreign policy with major regional and global players. behavior of Kyrgyzstan has been linked Furthermore, Akayev was known as a primarily to domestic politics. very gentle, polite and tactful person. His

137 Yaşar Sarı

efforts in establishing friendly relations that chose to undertake radical economic with other states were successful, due and political reforms. Economically: in large part to his personal relations it issued its own currency - som - in with other state leaders. Therefore, 1993, and became a member of World the personality of Akayev, as well as of Trade Organization (WTO) in 1998. different Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Politically: it showed its commitment affected the formation and evolution of to moving towards a democratic Kyrgyz foreign policy.16 transformation. It was even called “an 19 “Kyrgyzstan’s foreign policy has been island of democracy” in Central Asia. controlled by two considerations first, These policies also affected its foreign that the country is too small and too relations with other countries. In the poor to be economically viable without first decade, Kyrgyz leaders had traveled considerable outside assistance, and around the world to establish diplomatic second, that it lies in a volatile corner relations with other states. At the same of the globe, vulnerable to a number time, Kyrgyzstan signed multilateral of unpleasant possibilities. These two treaties and became a member of many considerations have substantially international organizations, such as the influenced the foreign relations of (UN), Organization Kyrgyzstan, especially toward major for Security and Cooperation in Europe powers and its immediate neighbors”.17 (OSCE), World Bank, International However, this policy was criticized by Monetary Fund (IMF), as well as joining the foreign policy experts in the country. some regional organizations, such as the For instance, former two-time Minister Shanghai Cooperation Organization of Foreign Affairs, Muratbek Imanaliev (SCO), Commonwealth of Independent said that Kyrgyzstan is a small country States (CIS), and Collective Security and cannot have a multi-vector foreign Treaty Organization (CSTO). In the policy. Instead, the Kyrgyz government fall of 1998 Kyrgyzstan was the first should determine a few strong partners Central Asian state that was accepted with whom Kyrgyzstan builds strong ally into the WTO. It is still the only Central relations.18 Asian state that is a member of that organization.20 Furthermore, in 1994 The Kyrgyz foreign policy under Askar Kyrgyzstan began cooperation with the Akayev can be divided into two different NATO program Partnership for Peace. periods to form a better understanding The practicality of this cooperation was of it. in educating Kyrgyz military cadres in First, in the early 1990s, Kyrgyzstan NATO countries, for example in Turkey. was among the few post-Soviet states Therefore, major goals of the Kyrgyz

138 Foreign Policy of Kyrgyzstan under Askar Akayev and Kurmanbek Bakiyev foreign policy in this period were the Andrey Kozyrev was the foreign minister consolidation of independence and of Russia. sovereignty, securing national interests Along with this balancing of foreign by political and diplomatic methods, and policy towards Russia and the United the creation of favorable conditions for States, Kyrgyzstan has taken certain political and economic reforms within steps toward another major power, the country. its neighbor China, which has a great Kyrgyzstan in the 1990s had started influence on Kyrgyzstan. China became developing relations with Western the largest non-CIS trade partner of countries, especially with the United Kyrgyzstan and strengthened economic States, in order to receive financial and military ties with Kyrgyzstan. assistance from these countries and many Worsening security and economic other international financial institutions. conditions within the state led it to Most of the assistance in the early 1990s look for external assistance. Kyrgyzstan provided by the Western countries was would not be able to protect its borders directed to the support of democratic even in the case of a small-scale conflict. and radical reforms. At the same time This was proven in August 1999, when Kyrgyzstan was trying to keep friendly a group of 150-200 armed militants relations with Russia, because the (supposedly religious extremist members Kyrgyz economy was heavily dependent of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan) crossed the Kyrgyz border, took several on Russia. The fact that Kyrgyzstan and local inhabitants and policemen as Russia were part of a single country with hostages and occupied several villages in a shared legacy from the past was another the Batken region. For several months reason for the development of close the Kyrgyz army tried in vain to dislodge Kyrgyz-Russian relations. Most Kyrgyz these militants from the territory, and political elites were either educated in succeeded only after external assistance major Russian cities, such as was provided.21 Therefore, the Batken or , or had worked in campaign during 1999-2000 indicated Russia at some point. Akayev had both the inability of Kyrgyzstan itself, and been educated and had worked in Russia other Central Asian states, to provide for a long time. However, despite these appropriate resistance to international attempts by the Kyrgyz political elites in terrorist groups, and indicated the the 1990s, Russian leadership was not necessity to unite and form common paying much attention, instead focusing forces to prevent further terrorist on its domestic problems, or promoting attacks. These incidents pushed a Western oriented foreign policy, when Kyrgyzstan not only to cooperate closely

139 Yaşar Sarı

with neighboring countries such as assistance, provided alternatives to the Uzbekistan, but also to value being a Central Asian countries for balancing the part of regional security organizations Russian influence. In other words, The such as SCO and CSTO. Kyrgyz government established ties with This multi-vector policy of Akayev the United States, while maintaining its worked successfully till Kyrgyzstan, as close relations with Russia. Such ties help well as the whole of the Central Asian Kyrgyzstan balance Russia by avoiding region, had gained new status. The events heavy reliance on it and thus securing 23 of September 11, 2001 were critical for Kyrgyzstan’s sovereignty. It is also the Central Asian region, and of course economically beneficial for Kyrgyzstan, had significant influence on the foreign because being an ally with the United policies of the states in this region, States provided a chance for new including Kyrgyzstan. The deployment investments in the Kyrgyz economy, and of American and Russian airbases had a the airbase became an important source great influence on Kyrgyzstan’s external of revenue for the Kyrgyz government. direction. Kyrgyzstan became very Additionally, the terrorist groups who important geopolitically, and its strategic entered the Batken oblast in 1999 and position had increased its importance for 2000 were members of the Islamic the major states. Thus, the next period Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) closely for the Kyrgyz foreign policy emerged connected to the Taliban movement; following the September 11, 2001 thus, for both the Kyrgyz and Uzbek attacks in the United States. governments, the American forces aided in dealing with these groups. When the United States announced a war against international terrorism Kyrgyzstan offered its civilian airport- and founded the anti-terror coalition, Manas International Airport - for a Kyrgyzstan was considered a good significant number of American military strategic and logistical location for planes. Of course, an American-led an American-led coalition airbase to coalition airbase in such close proximity supply materials to the coalition (mainly made Russian and Chinese authorities American) forces in Afghanistan.22 The very nervous, though they had hoped that Kyrgyz government quickly responded to this was only temporary. Russia did not this international change and utilized it as want to lose its influence in the region, an opportunity to develop new priorities including Kyrgyzstan, whereas China for its external relations. The fact was considered the presence of an American that the United States started to increase airbase near its borders a threat to its its activities as the global superpower, national security. Later, Russia reopened and, as well as providing economic an old Soviet airbase in Kant - in which

140 Foreign Policy of Kyrgyzstan under Askar Akayev and Kurmanbek Bakiyev

Hosni Mubarek of Egypt and Hafez El A couple of months prior to being Esad of Syria were trained as military overthrown by the opposition in pilots in the 1960s - only 50 kilometers 2005, Akayev was pushing for further away from the American one. Russian cooperation with Russia and China, and American military bases were never whereas the Kyrgyz-American relations this close anywhere in the world. Each showed signs of breaking up. After the of these countries had its own reasons first round of parliamentary elections to have military bases in the Central in February 2005, the United States Asian region. “The basic aim of the US Ambassador Stephen Young openly in the region is not to allow Central Asia criticized Akayev; and when Akayev was overthrown in March 2005 most experts to become a source of such threats as on Kyrgyzstan believed that it was done drug trafficking, the growth of Islamic with the assistance of the United States. extremism and multi-ethnic conflicts. At that point many experts claimed Another important aim is its energy that subsequently the foreign policy of security. The US, as the world’s largest Kyrgyzstan would be oriented towards energy consumer, is trying to diversify its the development of Kyrgyz-US relations. sources of energy supplies. Accessing the However, the reality was different.25 reserves of the Caspian area significantly 24 diversifies the US energy resources.” Kyrgyz Foreign Policy These two aims of the US in Central Asia were the main interests of Washington. under President Kurmanbek Furthermore, the American airbase in Bakiyev Kyrgyzstan has great importance, due to In 25 March 2005, when Kurmanbek the ongoing war in Afghanistan and the Bakiyev assumed power in Kyrgyzstan, possible military attack against Iran in he desired a new conception for its the future. However, the opening of the foreign policy. However, his policies Russian military base in Kant in 2003 were not very different from the previous with the CSTO program indicates the ones. Bakiyev himself as Prime Minister tendencies of the Kyrgyz foreign policy. during 2000 – 2002, and his first Foreign Kyrgyzstan tried to maintain a balance Minister Roza Otunbayeva, took the between Russia and the United States. same position as Akayev. Moreover, The Kyrgyz president, Akayev, clearly Bakiyev and his colleagues who came understood Russia to be the dominant to power were from the Soviet trained power in the region, so he tried to satisfy and educated elite, and their adherence the Russian leadership by providing a to Russia was a very important factor in military base. the future foreign policy direction. Many

141 Yaşar Sarı

experts talked about the significant of SCO, the declaration calling for the change that might happen in Kyrgyz United States to close the airbase and foreign policy. However, under Bakiyev’s withdraw from Kyrgyz territory was leadership, the new Kyrgyz authority accepted. However, following the visit of chose to leave the foreign policy as United States Defense Minister Donald it was and focus on domestic issues. Rumsfeld in the end of July 2005, the Kyrgyz authorities announced that Kyrgyz leadership’s opinion on the terms there would be no significant change in of the airbase withdrawal changed.28 its external policy. The first statement concerning Kyrgyz foreign policy was made by the acting foreign minister, The fact that Kyrgyzstan and Roza Otunbayeva, who said that: “not Russia were part of a single only will there be no fundamental country with a shared legacy change in foreign policy, there will be no from the past was another change at all in foreign policy.”26 In other reason for the development of words, Kyrgyz leaders announced that close Kyrgyz-Russian relations. Kyrgyzstan would keep on conducting a multi-vector foreign policy. Therefore, Kyrgyz foreign policy remained based During the same period, Bakiyev on the principles of strengthening its made his first presidential visit to Russia development of relations and cooperation and signed an agreement with his with the great powers, such as Russia, Russian counterpart Putin to increase China, and the United States. At the military cooperation, which showed same time it emphasized the importance the tendencies of Kyrgyz foreign policy. of its neighbors. Kyrgyzstan had also Thus, Bakiyev granted Russia priority in paid great attention to strengthening the country’s foreign policy. The Kyrgyz ties with the EU and Asian countries, ruling elites started emphasizing the great especially Japan and Korea. importance of Kyrgyz-Russian relations, Despite these claims of multi-vector supporting Bakiyev’s statements on their foreign policy, the new Kyrgyz leadership historical and cultural commonalities, had chosen Russia as a priority in the the economic dependence of Kyrgyzstan, direction of its foreign policy. It viewed and the great potential of future SCO and CSTO as the main regional developments of bilateral relations organizations.27 Russia and China and cooperation. Kyrgyzstan inclined started using this opportunity to get rid towards more cooperation with Russia of the American airbase in Kyrgyzstan. in the early years of the Bakiyev’s regime In July 2005 in Astana, at the summit and actively participated in regional

142 Foreign Policy of Kyrgyzstan under Askar Akayev and Kurmanbek Bakiyev organizations, such as SCO and CSTO. airbase rent increased from 2 million The Kyrgyz government emphasized the dollars to 17 million dollars with low- value of being a member of these regional interest loans, and the contract was organizations. This is an indication of extended.32 the attitude of Kyrgyz foreign policy towards its closest neighbors and major Kyrgyz foreign policy remained powers in the region - Russia and based on the principles of China.29 Especially considering the strengthening its development volatile domestic conditions, Bakiyev gave priority to the development of of relations and cooperation close relations with Russia because the with the great powers, such as United States is far away, but Russia is Russia, China, and the United very close. Russia could help Bakiyev to States. stay in power if the domestic condition 30 worsened. Three years later, when Bakiyev In February 2006, Bakiyev demanded visited Moscow in February 2009, he an increase in the rent payments for signed a Russian financial assistance the American airbase from 2 million to package, which included Russian 200 million dollars. On 19 April 2006, debt-forgiveness, $300 million in low- several days before Bakiyev’s official interest credit loans and $ 1.7 billion visit to Moscow, the Kyrgyz leader for completing a hydroelectric power made a sensational statement that had a station. Furthermore, he declared that significant impact on Kyrgyz-American the American military base will close, and relations. Bakiyev threatened: “If a new asked the American military personnel agreement on the conditions of to leave the country before the July 2009 has not been signed by 1 June 2006, presidential election in Kyrgyzstan. Such Kyrgyzstan will end its bilateral agreement moves suggested Russia was enjoying with the US on the deployment of the unprecedented stature in the Kyrgyz American airbase Ganci.”31Furthermore, leader’s eyes. At the same time Russia and during his Moscow trip in 2006, Bakiyev Kyrgyzstan were taking concrete steps stated that Russia is the eternal friend in the name of bilateral cooperation. of Kyrgyzstan and the United States The Kyrgyz authorities’ statement on is a partner. He refused to take part in recognizing Russia as a main strategic the Highly Indebted Poor Countries partner was considered proof of their (HIPC) program led by the World Bank pro-Russian orientation. Agreements and IMF, instead accepted Russian loans on the creation of joint plants, loans, and credits. After a long negotiation, the and building hydro-energy stations on

143 Yaşar Sarı

Kyrgyz territory are all important steps Russian government, especially Prime on the way to building close ties between Minister Putin. When Putin met with Kyrgyzstan and Russia. Therefore, one his Kyrgyz counterpart Prime Minister can identify this period as constituting Daniyar Usenov, he accused Bakiyev the high point in bilateral relations and his government of not keeping 33 between Kyrgyzstan and Russia. their promises.35 Russian TV stations, However, following the July which are popular in Kyrgyzstan, openly presidential election, Kyrgyz foreign criticized Bakiyev and his family, and policy shifted its attention to developing broadcast programs on the corruption close relations with the United States. of his family. The Russian government, Bakiyev signed a new agreement with the previously refusing to talk with Kyrgyz United States to keep the military base opposition leaders, invited them to in the airport under a different status, Moscow.36 On 1 April 2010, the Russian and, of course, with more payment of government terminated the preferred rent. He took a risky step by extending customs taxes that Kyrgyzstan had the American use of Gansi military been enjoying. Prices of some products, base, which Russia opposed. Bakiyev’s especially oil and other products attitude indicated a change in the Kyrgyz imported from Russia, increased and approach to the military base. There are created an upheaval in the country. two reasons. Firstly, while previously the Kyrgyz government was concerned with It can be said that for such a small the base’s strategic value, the Bakiyev country as Kyrgyzstan, designating government’s new attitude was based on a certain country as a priority in the economic value of the base, both for foreign policy will not bring benefits. (Bakiyev’s) personal and national reasons. As Chairman of the Foundation of The second reason was that Bakiyev Political Research and former State thought that he had consolidated his SecretaryAmbassador Ishenbay domestic power and did not require any Abdrazakov said: “Foreign policy is to external support, such as from Russia, satisfy the requirements of our country to stay in power. Thus, Bakiyev signed and contribute to the solution of our a new agreement to keep the American internal problems. Since we do have a lot 34 transit base in Bishkek. of problems, then our foreign policy has The new agreement between to be very flexible. If we will act in such Kyrgyzstan and the United States on the a way to give priority to certain states military base, and transferring Russian among many states, we will lose our face, loans to Bakiyev’s son ’s then our foreign policy, I think, will not bank, Asia Universal Bank, angered the achieve the needed goals.”37

144 Foreign Policy of Kyrgyzstan under Askar Akayev and Kurmanbek Bakiyev

Conclusion namely Kyrgyzstan. The post September 11 environment had caused a profound Russian foreign policy in the early 1990s change in the region, and Kyrgyzstan was different to that of post 1994. In the adapted itself to the new environment early 1990s, Russia’s main priorities were because of its proximity to Afghanistan, to develop close relations with Western not only in geographical terms but also countries and organizations. That way historically, and naturally it was greatly Russia could expect to become an affected. Kyrgyz foreign policy makers important member of the Western club. found alternative sources. Although However, following the December 1993 some shifts in the priorities of Kyrgyz election and, furthermore, following foreign policy did happen, Kyrgyzstan Putin coming to power in 2000, the never experienced any strict radical Russian foreign policy direction turned change in its foreign policy. to the former Soviet countries, including the Central Asian ones. This was precisely what Russian policymakers pushed onto Although some shifts in the the agenda. They claimed that Russia priorities of Kyrgyz foreign was and is the political center and a policy did happen, Kyrgyzstan historic magnet for the Central Asian never experienced any strict states.38 This created an image of center- radical change in its foreign periphery relations, again reminiscent of policy. a Moscow-centric past, which did not attract Kyrgyz policymakers. Especially in the second half of the 1990s, the image After spring 2005, Kyrgyzstan was of Russia as the hegemon power in the transformed from a security-creating region was seen with trepidation at first, environment to a security-consuming and attracted diminishing enthusiasm region, which seemingly stretched from thereafter among the Kyrgyz leaders. the Caucasus to western China. The Kyrgyz leaders were looking for an actor post Spring 2005 environment has who could balance Russian dominance allowed Russia to play the role of the in the region. regional hegemon power, and nowhere When the new order and rules of has this been more prevalent than in the post September 11 world were her relationship with Kyrgyzstan where pronounced by the United States its effects and impacts have ranged from President George W. Bush, the countries the internal politics to the attempt to most affected were in Central Asia, close the American military base in including those studied in this paper, Kyrgyzstan.

145 Yaşar Sarı

Being a newly independent state, and national goals. Furthermore, the Kyrgyzstan desired multiple channels of geography that Kyrgyzstan finds itself communication with the outside world. located in puts an inordinate amount Therefore, first of all, Kyrgyzstan has of pressure on the country. In addition cooperated closely with Russia, China, to that, in terms of domestic politics, the United States, the European Union, the lack of an experienced foreign Turkey, et al. Secondly, Kyrgyzstan has policy elite, as well as the authoritarian never had any strict radical line in its system of governance under Akayev and foreign policy. Kyrgyz governments have Bakiyev, hindered systematic thinking in generally tried to stay away from being the realm of Kyrgyz foreign policy. a place of competition for other states. However, implementing the notion of a Finally, both interests and fears multi-vector foreign of Akayev and Bakiyev as leaders policy is also difficult Implementing the notion of of Kyrgyzstan, for a country that has a multi-vector foreign policy totally dependency and changes in the is also difficult for a country on international and international system regional powers. that has totally dependency and the regional For this reason, on international and regional subsystems have it is difficult for powers. pushed Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan to remain towards restricted neutral in case of choices and certain indeterminate conflicts between two or more of its foreign policy behaviors. As a conclusion, partners, and to refrain from taking a it can be said that Kyrgyz foreign policy harsh stance against one of the partners in the last twenty years has developed in involved. a relatively orderly manner; of course, The tentative closing words one can except when international and regional offer in this brief investigation of Kyrgyz systems have been shaken and changed, foreign policy consist of the obvious: such as following the September 11 there are many instances of rhetoric attacks in 2001, and when internal and only some evidence of the actual political changes happened in 2005 and realization of the state’s common personal 2010.

146 Foreign Policy of Kyrgyzstan under Askar Akayev and Kurmanbek Bakiyev

Endnotes

1 Jonathan Wilkenfeld, et al., Foreign Policy Behavior: The Interstate Behavior Analysis Model, Beverly Hills, Sage Publications, 1980, p. 21. 2 Robert Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games”, International Organization, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Summer 1998), pp. 427-461. 3 For bureaucratic-organizational model approach, see Graham T. Allison, Essence of Decision, , Little, Brown, 1972; Morton H. Halperin, Priscilla Clapp, Arnold Kanter, Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution Press, 1974. 4 Sensibility means that actors are sensitive to the other actors or developments in parts of the system. The degree of sensitivity depends on how quickly a change in one actor brings about changes in another and how great the effect is. Vulnerability means that actors may be vulnerable to the effects of those changes. Vulnerability is measured by the costs imposed on a state or other actors by external events. See, for more information on sensibility and vulnerability, Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, 2nd ed., Boston, Little Brown, 1977. 5 Colin Elman, “Horses for Courses: Why not Neorealist Theories of Foreign Policy”, Security Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Summer 1997), p. 31. 6 Ibid., p. 32. 7 Miriam F. Elman, “The Foreign Policies of Small States: Challenging Neorealism in Its Own Backyard”, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 25, No. 2 (April 1995), pp. 171-217. 8 The threat could be based on internal power struggles, as in Kyrgyzstan, and/or ethnic minority refusal to recognize and rebel against the central government, or an ethnic minority’s desire to establish its own state or integrate/join a state which is established and governed by their kin, such as the Karabakh Armenians in Azerbaijan and the Abkhazians in Georgia. 9 Barry Buzan, People, States, and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post- Cold War Era, Brighton, Wheatsheaf Books, 1983, p. 89. 10 Tom Wood, The Formation of Kyrgyz Foreign Policy 1991-2004, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Tuft University, 2005. 11 Kyrgyz Constitution, Articles 9, 12, 58 emphasize the role of Jogorku Kenesh, articles 42, 46 emphasize the role of the president in foreign policy issues. See, Zakir Chotaev, Парламентская Форма Правления В Кыргызстане: Проблемы И Перспективы (Parliamentary Form of Government in Kyrgyzstan: Problems and Prospects), Bishkek, Neo Print, 2012, pp. 72-106. 12 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kyrgyz Republic, Law on the Diplomatic Service, at http:// www.mfa.kg/acts/law-dipservice-2_en.html [last visited 21 July 2011].

147 Yaşar Sarı

13 Alexei Bogaturov, Международные Отношения В Центральной Азии: События И Документы (International Relations in Central Asia: Events and Documents), Moskova, Aspekt Press, 2011. 14 Giorgio Fiacconi, Kyrgyzstan 20 Years Independence: Between Scandals and Corrupt Elite, Bishkek, The Times of Central Asia, 2012. 15 Aleksandr Knyazev, Векторы И Парадигмы Киргизской Независимости: Очерки Постсоветской Истории (Vectors and Paradigms of Kyrgyz Independence: Essays on Post- Soviet History), Bishkek, Aleksandr Knyazev Public Fund, 2012. 16 Bogaturov, Международные Отношения В Центральной Азии: События И Документы (International Relations in Central Asia: Events and Documents), pp.255-256. 17 Country Studies, Foreign Relations, at http://countrystudies.us/kyrgyzstan/32.htm [last visited 21 July 2011]. 18 Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia region in Modern Conditions: Perspectives and Possible Risks, at http://www.open.kg/ru/thema_discus/blics_archive_2005/thema_15 (last visited 12 May 2011). Also see former Foreign Minister and General Secretary of SCO Muratbek Imanaliev’s essays on Kyrgyz Foreign Policy; Muratbek C. Imanaliev, Очерки О Внешней Политике Кыргызстана (Essays on the Foreign Policy of Kyrgyzstan), Bishkek: Sabır, 2002. 19 See, David Lewis, The Temptations of Tyranny in Central Asia,New York, Columbia University Press, 2008, p. 123; Gregory Gleason, Asel Kerimbekova and Svetlana Kozhirova, “Realism and the Small State: Evidence from Kyrgyzstan”, International Politics, Vol. 45, No. 1 (January 2008), p. 47. 20 The Russian Federation and completed the negotiation process and expect to be members of WTO soon. 21 Orozbek Moldaliev, Современные Вызовы Безопасности Кыргызстана И Центральной Азии (Contemporary Security Challenges in Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia), Bishkek, Friedrich Ebert Foundation, 2001, pp. 28-30. 22 Knyazev, Векторы И Парадигмы Киргизской Независимости: Очерки Постсоветской Истории (Vectors and Paradigms of Kyrgyz Independence: Essays on Post- Soviet History), pp. 142-149. 23 Hooman Peimani, Conflict and Security in Central Asia and the Caucasus, Santa Barbara, ABC-CLIO, 2009, p. 147. 24 Former Ambassador and Parliamentarian ’s public speech, “The Great Game and Central Asia: Opportunities and Challenges”, at http://www.src.auca.kg/b_beshimov.html [last visited 5 March 2011]. 25 Giorgio Fiacconi, Kyrgyzstan 20 Years Independence: Between Scandals and Corrupt Elite, Bishkek, The Times of Central Asia, 2012, p. 51.

148 Foreign Policy of Kyrgyzstan under Askar Akayev and Kurmanbek Bakiyev

26 Former President and Foreign Minister of Kyrgyzstan, Roza Otunbayeva, “Kyrgyzstan Conducts Multivector Foreign Policy”, at http://www.voanews.com/russian/archiev/2005- 06/2005-06-15-voa2.cfm [last visited 06 March 2011]. 27 Eugene Huskey, “Foreign Policy in a Vulnerable State: Kyrgyzstan as Military Entrepot between the Great Powers”, China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 4 (November- December 2008), p. 11. According to Central Asian scholars on importance of CSTO for the region, Vladimir A. Chernov, ОДКБ: Как Институт Межгосударственной Военно-Политической Интеграции На Постсоветском Пространстве (CSTO: As the Institute of Inter-State Military and Political Integration on the Post-Soviet Space), Bishkek, KRSU, 2009. 28 Erica Marat, “Rumsfeld in Kyrgyzstan: Halting America’s Faltering Position in Central Asia”, Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, 27 July 2005, at http://www.cacianalyst.org/ newsite/?q=node/3241 [last visited 06 March 2011]. 29 Zarinam T. Turdiyeva, Основные Направления Межгосударственного Взаимодействия Российской Федерации И Государств Центральной Азии В Решении Проблем Международной Безопасности (The Main Directions of Interstate Interaction of the Russian Federation and Central Asian States in Resolving International Security Problems), Bishkek, KRSU, 2011. 30 See, Yasar Sari and Sureyya Yigit, “Foreign Policy Re-Orientation & Political Symbolism in Kyrgyzstan”, Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, Vol. 8, No. 2 (14 June 2006). 31 Ulugbek Juraev, “Kyrgyzstan Attacks United States, Relying on Russia and China”, April 2006, at http://www.analitika.org/article/php?story=20060425041313997 [last visited 06 March 2011]. 32 Knyazev, Векторы И Парадигмы Киргизской Независимости: Очерки Постсоветской Истории (Vectors and Paradigms of Kyrgyz Independence: Essays on Post-Soviet History), pp. 234-236. 33 RIA Novosti, “Kyrgyzstan Will Demand US Close the Base Eventually”, 20 February 2008, at http://en.rian.ru/world/20080220/99718840.html [last visited 06 March 2011]. 34 RIA Novosti, “Kyrgyz President Signs Law on U.S. Manas Transit Center”, 07 July 2009, at http://en.rian.ru/world/20090707/155456605.html [last visited 06 March 2011]. 35 Venera Djumatoeva, “Moscow Chills Relations with Kyrgyzstan”, RFE/RL, 23 February 2010, at http://www.rferl.org/content/Moscow_Chills_Relations_With_Kyrgyzstan/1966393. html [last visited 06 March 2011]. 36 Yaşar Sarı, “Kırgızistan’da İktidarın El Değiştirmesi: Akayev ve Bakiyev’in Düşüşü”, Orta Asya ve Kafkasya Araştırmalar Dergisi, Vol. 5, No. 9 (Summer 2010), pp. 27-47; Daniel Trilling and Chingiz Umetov, “Kyrgyzstan: Is Putin Punishing Bakiyev?” Eurasianet.org, 5 April 2010, at http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav040610a.shtml [last visited 05 March 2011].

149 Yaşar Sarı

37 Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia Region in Modern Conditions: Perspectives and Possible Risks, at http://www.open.kg/ru/thema_discus/blics_archive_2005/thema_15 [last visited 05 March 2011]. 38 Ambassador of Russian Federation in Kyrgyzstan recently published a book on Kyrgyz- Russian Relations. See, Valentin C. Vlasov, Стратегической Парнерство Россйской Федерации И Киргизской Республики: Предпосылки И Основные Направления (Strategic Partnerships Russian Federation and Kyrgyz Republic: Background and Key Areas), Bishkek, KRSU, 2012.

150