Central Asia: Feb '09

IWPR debate on closure of US base reflected conflicting views on implications for the country.

Central Asia: Feb '09

IWPR debate on closure of US base reflected conflicting views on implications for the country.

Friday, 20 March, 2009
Participants in an IWPR discussion meeting held in Bishkek hotly debated the decision to close the American military airbase in Kyrgyzstan.



The March 6 event explored the complexities of this controversial issue, and reflected the range of conflicting views now circulating in Kyrgyzstan about what an end to the United States presence would mean for the country’s future direction.



While there was general consensus that the closure of the US base at Manas Aiport would help Russia resume its dominant role in Central Asia, not everyone believed the door had been finally closed to the Americans.



The discussion was built around IWPR reports such as Kyrgyzstan: How Imminent is US Base Closure?
, and an interview with a former US ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, John O’Keefe, Airbase Eviction May Weaken Kyrgyzstan, which looked behind the headlines of President Kurmanbek Bakiev’s announcement on the closure of the base at Manas airport, which he made in Moscow on February 3.



The event took place two days after President Kurmanbek Bakiev appeared to slightly shift position again, suggesting in a BBC interview that although the airbase agreement had been annulled, “the doors are not closed” to the Americans and some kind of new arrangement might be negotiable.



The one thing that the political analysts and regional experts who attended the event seemed to agree on was that IWPR’s reporting of this highly politicised issue was balanced. Mars Sariev said the articles gave him fresh insights into the issues surrounding the closure.



Most participants agreed that the eviction order served on the Americans was at the behest of Moscow, which has long been unhappy about what it regards as creeping western influence in a region it regards as its own back yard.



Bakiev made his initial announcement after receiving what amounts to a two-billion-dollar cheque in loans and investment from the Russians. The bulk of the money will go on completing work on the Kambarata-1 hydroelectric power plant.



Experts were deeply divided on the longer-term consequences, with Toktogul Kakchekeev suggesting that the move would cause little damage to diplomatic relations with western state, evoking a few protests from them but not much more. Others, however, saw the switch from western to Russian support as an irrevocable mistake.



Kakchekeev favours what he says is a concerted attempt by Moscow to regain its position in Central Asia, which the Manas decision strengthened



“Russia has ambitions to great power status [which it is furthering] by offering financial aid and playing the role of protector in Central Asia,” he said, “This idea became more clearly delineated following the Aughust 2008 conflict with Georgia over South Ossetia.”

From now on, he said, NATO would have to route any request for support for its operations in Afghanistan through the two regional security blocs – the Collective Security Treaty Organisation and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.



“That explains Bakiev’s remarks to the BBC about an agreement [with the US] within a ‘new format’,” added Kakchekeev. “Russia has won the struggle with America for Kyrgyzstan for the moment. “



Muratbek Imanaliev, a co-founder of the Institute for Public Policy and leading expert on foreign policy matters, disagreed, saying the closure of the airbase equated to the end of US government interest in Kyrgyzstan.



“The base is the only thing keeping the American government here,” he said. “Nothing else interests them.”



Some commentators fear the loss of a western political focus on Kyrgyzstan could lead to a reduction in economic assistance.



“We have had long-term channels [of western assistance]. Was it sensible to lose this in exchange for a one-off aid package?” asked Bishkek-based analyst Valentin Bogatyrev, who regards Russia’s advance as more of a threat than an opportunity for Kyrgyzstan.



“By signing the agreement, Kyrgyzstan has become a hostage in a geopolitical game. Russia is not going to emerge as the winner, but we will place our reliance in it through inertia,” he said.

Frontline Updates
Support local journalists