GENERAL PETRAEUS IN SEARCH OF ALTERNATIVE SUPPLY ROUTES FOR AFGHANISTAN

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

The recent tour of the US commander for the Middle East and Central Asia, General Petraeus, to the Central Asian states highlights the US efforts to develop a working strategy in Afghanistan, where costs for the US failure could be very high for Barack Obama. The timing coincides with instability in Pakistan, the country on which NATO relies for supply routes, Russian President Medvedev’s visit to Uzbekistan shortly after, and Russia’s recent massive economic assistance to Kyrgyzstan reportedly in exchange for its decision to shut down the US air base at Manas.

As a result of the unstable situation in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province, the US has been reassessing its existing supply routes for the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Recent Taliban attacks on NATO convoys have threatened the security of the supply route over the Khyber Pass, compelling Washington to search for additional routes in the former Soviet Union. “There have been agreements reached and there are transit lines now and transit agreements for commercial goods and services in particular, that include several of the countries in Central Asia and Russia,” - Petraeus said. The US plans to double the number of troops on the ground to about 60 000 to address a growing insurgency, provide security for the upcoming Presidential elections and complete a nation-building effort in Afghanistan. The US strategy could extend to Iran as well, through Europeans rather than Russians: “NATO is looking at flexible, alternate routing. I think that is healthy,” John Craddock, NATO’s top commander, mentioned when talking about the ability of the NATO allies to freely negotiate with Iran on alternative routes. This could provide the US with geopolitical advantages in its relations with Iran while reducing Russia’s bargaining power in Central Asia on existing and future related deals. But the Kyrgyz Government’s decision points to the opposite.

On February 3 in Moscow, the Kyrgyz President Bakiev announced the government’s intention to shut down the US base in the country, introducing relevant legislation to Parliament. The decision came after Bakiev secured US$ 150 million in aid, US$ 180 million in debt forgiveness, and US$ 2 billion in loans from Russia for financially wrecked Kyrgyzstan. "Eight years have passed…We have repeatedly raised with the United States the matter of economic compensation for the existence of the base in Kyrgyzstan, but we have not been understood," – said Bakiev. Mars Sariev, a political analyst, believes the removal is unlikely: “We should understand that the US base eviction entails a withdrawal of huge Western investments, not only from the US, but also from the whole Western world.” Any US plans to provide a bigger compensation to Kyrgyzstan for the base will probably be futile given Russia’s massive economic assistance to Kyrgyzstan and willingness to provide its own territory for the supply routes.

This worst case scenario for Washington probably triggered Petraeus’ earlier visit to other regional states for alternatives. At a meeting with Kazakh President Nazarbaev, Petraeus credited Kazakhstan for its efforts in Iraq: “Kazakh soldiers have destroyed more than 5 million explosives, provided medical assistance to hundreds of Iraqi citizens, and trained hundreds of Iraqi soldiers to deactivate explosives.” Both sides also discussed Kazakhstan’s role in Afghanistan’s economic development. Petraeus thanked Nazarbaev for allowing NATO to use the country’s air space and the reached agreements on transit of non-military supplies.

President Rahmon of Tajikistan, which is severely hit by the financial crisis and energy deficits, also agreed to the General’s plan. A senior economist with the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade Hodjimuhhamad Umarov considers that “cooperation with the US, apart from creating highly necessary jobs, will help strengthen Tajikistan’s entrepreneurial base.” Rashid Abdullo, a political analyst, believes that “considering the recent revitalization of extremist organizations, especially the Taliban, a permanent US presence can serve as a guarantor of peace for Tajikistan.” The Turkmen reaction, however, is obscure. The country dismissed claims appearing in Russian press that it would provide its territory to NATO training camps and rear bases.

While the Kyrgyz President appeared in Moscow on Medvedev’s invitation, Tajik President Rahmon did not. Furthermore, Tajikistan’s participation at the upcoming summits of the CSTO and EEC is a big question mark. “Vremya Novostey” believes Rahmon’s decision was taken after the meeting between the presidents of Russia and Uzbekistan on January 22, where Medvedev threatened to disengage from regional energy schemes if no agreement by all sides was secured. Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have repeatedly fought over the issue of water distribution, with Uzbekistan allegedly obstructing Tajikistan’s unilateral energy projects with Russia.  

Earlier Russia’s Chief of General Staff General Nicolay Makarov stated: “…The US created bases in Romania, Bulgaria, and, according to our data, plan to create military bases in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.” Petraeus, however, denied such plans in Kazakhstan. Although Uzbekistan has a history of tense relations with Russia, Russia still exercises leverage over Uzbekistan through regional energy projects, especially given Tashkent’s equally visible history of stern relations with Washington. 

????? ???????????

Medvedev’s efforts in Central Asia implicitly seek to obstruct, though not prevent, US plans for alternative supply routes in Central Asia. For now, its depleting cash reserves might help it remove the US base from Kyrgyzstan, offering its own territory for NATO supply routes to Afghanistan. Russia most likely seeks to strike a better bargain with the US on other security issues in Europe, especially given its limited ability to pressure all cash-stripped regional states longing for Western investments in what is more likely to be supply routes for non-military goods rather than additional US military bases in its underbelly.