Wednesday, 27 March 2013

NATO To Transfer Military Equipment From Afghanistan To Uzbekistan

Published in Field Reports
Rate this item
(1 Vote)

by Erkin Akhmadov (03/20/2013 issue of the CACI Analyst)

On March 12, 2013, Uzbekistan’s Foreign Minister Abdulaziz Kamilov visited Washington, D.C. and met with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. The meeting is a consequence of the recently warming relations between Uzbekistan and the U.S., and of the decision to withdraw NATO troops from Afghanistan through Uzbekistan. The most widely discussed issue in relation to the visit is NATO’s decision to transfer parts the military equipment used in Afghanistan to Uzbekistan. Local and regional experts have a number of suggestions for how the Uzbek regime may utilize the equipment and what implications this may have for Uzbekistan’s future relations with neighboring Central Asian states.


Kamilov’s visit came in response to the visit to Uzbekistan by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense David Sedney and a U.S. Congress Delegation headed by Dana Rohrabacher. While the details of the closed doors negotiations between Kamilov and Kerry were not publicized, during the press availability both sides confirmed that issues of military-technical cooperation were on the agenda. Kerry briefly noted Uzbekistan’s human rights problem, but this remark received little attention in the course of the meeting. A point frequently made by analysts is that after it became known that Uzbekistan will be a transit country for NATO troops exiting Afghanistan, the Uzbekistan-U.S. relations improved drastically, disregarding the expulsion of U.S. troops several years ago and downplaying U.S. criticism of human rights violations in Uzbekistan.

It should be noted that the EU and the U.S. are still subjecting Uzbekistan to a weapons embargo in response to a number of human rights violations that were condemned by western human rights activists and governments. In the end of 2012, Uzbekistan requested NATO support in the sphere of military education, according to the annual report issued by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Referring to sources in NATO, the New York Times reported that Uzbekistan had unofficially requested weapons and ammunition transfers from the U.S., Germany, and Great Britain. Among the items listed were armored vehicles, mine detectors, helicopters, navigation equipment and night vision goggles. According to the Birzhevoy Lider magazine, Washington and Tashkent have earlier agreed on military-technical supply in the form of unmanned aerial vehicles, armored vehicles and other technology. It is also known that Great Britain will transfer parts of its military equipment from Afghanistan to uzbekistan in exchange for transit rights across Uzbekistan's territory.

These developments are unsurprising, as Uzbekistan will be NATO’s leading partner in withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan, which is planned for next year. Both parties state their concern over the terrorist threat that Uzbekistan will face due to its geographic proximity to Afghanistan. Some experts are concerned, however, that the expansion of such cooperation can lead the U.S. to move beyond the supply of non-lethal equipment to supplying Uzbekistan with weapons and ammunition. Such concerns stem from a fear that if acquiring significantly improved military capabilities, Uzbekistan could seek to resolve its disputes with neighboring Central Asian states by force. Thus, a frequent opinion among Central Asian analysts is that by supporting the development of Uzbekistan’s military, the U.S. is planting a time-delayed bomb that increases the risk of a future military explosion in the region.

On the eve of the Uzbek delegation’s visit, Human Rights Watch appealed to Kerry to demand that the Uzbek authorities improve their human rights record. This issue, however, was not mentioned on the meeting’s agenda. It is notable that Reporters without Borders, which produces an annual index of press freedom in the world, does not include Uzbekistan in its 2013 list of Enemies of the Internet. Uzbekistan was previously on this list together with Belarus, Turkmenistan and North Korea. Evgeniy Olhovskiy, a Canada-based market specialist, noted that Reporters without Borders are an important source of trend changes in U.S. policies relating to human rights issues. Thus, Birzhevoy Lider claims that not listing the country in this rating could be considered as a conciliatory gesture of Reporters without Borders toward Uzbekistan.

.Alexander Sobyanin of the Association of Border Cooperation forecasted 2a rapid transformation of Uzbekistan into a military and economic giant of the region2 in an interview with Nezavisimaya Gazeta. In addition, the New York Times reports that Uzbekistan’s military cooperation with the U.S. is an irritant to the Kremlin, and that Russia intends to extend corresponding military assistance in return. Thus, for instance, the head of the Department for Central Asia and Kazakhstan of Russia's Institute of CIS countries Andrey Grozin believes that the trend of militarization in Central Asia could potentially lead to a deepened conflict of interests betzeen the U.S. and Russia in the region. 

Read 4167 times Last modified on Thursday, 11 April 2013

Visit also





Joint Center Publications

Article S. Frederick Starr, "Why Central Asia Counts", Middle East Insights, November 6, 2017

Article Mamuka Tsereteli, “Russian Aggression in the Black Sea Cannot Go Unanswered” The Hill, September 11, 2017

Article Bilahari Kausikan, Fred Starr, and Yang Cheng, “Asia’s Game of Thrones, Central Asia: All Together Now.” The American Interest, June 16,2017

Article Svante E. Cornell “The Raucous Caucasus” The American Interest, May 2, 2017

Resource Page "Resources on Terrorism and Radical Islamism in Central Asia", Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program, April 11, 2017.

Silk Road Monograph Nicklas Norling, Party Problems and Factionalism in Soviet Uzbekistan: Evidence from the Communist Party Archives, March 2017.

Oped Svante E. Cornell, "Russia: An Enabler of Jihad?", W. Martens Center for European Studies, January 16, 2017.

Book Svante E. Cornell, ed., The International Politics of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict: The Original 'Frozen Conflict' and European Security, Palgrave, 2017. 

Article Svante E. Cornell, The fallacy of ‘compartmentalisation’: the West and Russia from Ukraine to Syria, European View, Volume 15, Issue 1, June 2016.

Silk Road Paper Shirin Akiner, Kyrgyzstan 2010: Conflict and Context, July 2016. 

Silk Road Paper John C. K. Daly, Rush to Judgment: Western Media and the 2005 Andijan ViolenceMay 2016.

Silk Road Paper Jeffry Hartman, The May 2005 Andijan Uprising: What We KnowMay 2016.

Silk Road Paper Johanna Popjanevski, Retribution and the Rule of Law: The Politics of Justice in Georgia, June 2015.

Book S. Frederick Starr and Svante E. Cornell, eds., ·Putin's Grand Strategy: The Eurasian Union and its Discontents, Joint Center Monograph, September 2014.

The Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst is a biweekly publication of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program, a Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center affiliated with the American Foreign Policy Council, Washington DC., and the Institute for Security and Development Policy, Stockholm. For 15 years, the Analyst has brought cutting edge analysis of the region geared toward a practitioner audience.


Sign up for upcoming events, latest news and articles from the CACI Analyst