Analytical Articles

Successfully managing the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan is perhaps the most urgent task of Leon Panetta, the new U.S. Defense Secretary. The fundamental issue is how fast U.S. and NATO troops will leave the country and what Afghan conditions and regional structure will emerge in their wake. No matter how effectively U.S. forces implement their strategy and tactics, they cannot win the war alone. The Pentagon needs reliable partners, both in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to leave behind a democratic government able to contain widespread political violence and prevent the reconstruction of terrorist bases and suppress a narcotics-funded insurgency that threatens neighboring countries.

The first anniversary of the tragic interethnic conflicts in and around Osh city in June passed peacefully. Discussions, however, reveal a deep divide in Kyrgyz society about the causes and consequences of the events. Some believe they were a one-time occurrence caused by political instability following the April 2010 “Revolution”, which removed President Kurmanbek Bakiyev from power, and that it was instigated by Bakiyev's supporters in order to destabilize the country. Others think conflicts are inevitable in this densely populated and impoverished multiethnic part of the Fergana Valley. The only way to mitigate those conflicts is to build a conflict mediation infrastructure in order to avoid the escalation of local community disputes into large-scale bloody quarrels.

Last July, two significant events stirred the waters of the otherwise apparently still Turkmenistan politics. First, large-scale explosions of ammunition at arms depots swept over Abadan, a satellite town of the capital Ashkhabad, leaving dozens dead and wreaking havoc with the town infrastructure. The emergency was eventually followed by a statement of President Berdimuhammedov, inviting exile opposition leaders to return to Turkmenistan and run in the upcoming presidential election to be held in early 2012. While the statement was given considerable coverage in both local and international media, the explosions initially passed relatively unnoticed.

Relations between Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan have become a barometer for and a troublesome symptom of the overall regional development in Central Asia. One year has passed since the tragic events of June 2010 in the south of Kyrgyzstan where a terrible clash took place between local Uzbeks and Kyrgyz. Hundreds of Uzbeks were killed in the massacres. Allegations, investigations and analyses of the events are still filled with controversial interpretations and perceptions. Reactions to the international investigation of the conflict are telling of the lack of much-needed regional conflict mechanisms for conflict resolution in Central Asia.

Following the sudden passing of Abkhaz de facto President Sergei Bagapsh in May, Georgia’s breakaway region of Abkhazia will hold a snap Presidential election on August 26. This coincides with South Ossetian leader Kokoity serving his last few months in office: unless the South Ossetian constitution is amended, Kokoity will have to step down and allow for elections in November. The outcome of the two elections is unlikely to have a considerable impact on the post-2008 status quo in the region. However – in Abkhazia in particular – the election processes will test the level influence enjoyed by Russia in the two regions and, as such, constitute an important measurement of their independence from Moscow.

During President Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to Tashkent on June 14, he and Uzbek President Islam Karimov indicated the need for joint approaches to deal with the common threat posed by the Arab revolutions to their rule and that of their neighbors. According to Medvedev, Russian national interest deemed it necessary “that (future) events develop along scenarios that are understandable and predictable for us”. Subsequently at the Tenth Summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the members expressed the need to tighten security, with President Hu Jintao of China even advocating improved measures for rapid responses to crises. Undoubtedly revolutions along these lines featured prominently in their thinking.

In early April 2011, the Kyrgyz Government unveiled plans to join the Customs Union (CU) under the auspices of the Eurasian Economic Community (EURASEC) led by Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. This has sparked heated debate in Kyrgyzstan on the pros and cons of the move, which has received mixed reactions from the expert community. While the CU’s economic rationality is questionable, its character as an institution designed to boost Russian influence over the CIS implies that Kyrgyzstan’s membership will come at the price of reducing its political and economic sovereignty.

With little discussion, Tajikistan’s parliament recently approved a number of government-proposed amendments to legislation. These amendments impose additional restrictions on religious education for Tajik nationals both at home and abroad. Young Tajiks seeking to study Islam abroad will now find it increasingly difficult or impossible to do so, and their options for studying religion at home will be limited to a few government-sanctioned schools. As a result, people wishing to learn more about the religion will have little other choice but to seek such education from clandestine groups.

One year after Kyrgyzstan adopted a parliamentary system the question arises whether a strong parliament can really ensure freedoms better than a centralized presidential system. Introduced after the violent regime change in 2010, Kyrgyzstan’s parliamentary system was to bring greater openness and equality after a decade of authoritarian leadership. However, in a recent resolution, the parliament has moved to oppress civic freedoms and freedom of the mass media in a manner more closely resembling the typical governance of post-Soviet authoritarian regimes. However, such moves have previously contributed to stirring social unrest in the country.

Some years ago, Uzbekistan’s President Islam Karimov used the expression “strategic uncertainty” to describe the ambiguous geopolitical situation emerging in Central Asia due to the complex game played by great powers in and over the region. Recent trends in Uzbekistan’s foreign policy, especially towards Afghanistan, reveal a strategic uncertainty in its own right due to Uzbekistan’s recent controversial moves on the international arena. In turn, this perplexity reflects the ambiguity of geopolitical trends in the entire region. Uzbekistan is well positioned to play a role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, but needs to revise its foreign policy in line with emerging regional realities.