Bush Must Forge Alliances With Afghanistan's Uneasy Neighbors

by Abid Aslam

The Bush administration has not yet made clear the kind of presence it intends to establish in the Central Asian countries, what level of support it expects from their governments, and what price it is willing to pay in return for their allegiance.

Many of these details may not come to light until after the initial military campaign is over. Enough is known, however, to worry a number of observers.

Tajikistan is embroiled in clan disputes with religious overtones that have persisted even after the completion of a peace process that included the incorporation of self-described Islamists into the government. In addition, the cash-strapped government in Dushanbe has had to commit resources to containing incursions by Afghanistan-based rebels whose fight against the government of Uzbekistan has spilled over the Tajik border. The focus on security has stalled political reforms and suppressed economic activity.

Some 10,000 Russian troops under Moscow's command are based in Tajikistan and patrol its Afghan border with the mandate to keep rebels and refugees out. Tajikistan also borders China. Moscow and Beijing contribute in some way to the fight against the Taliban but neither welcomes the prospect of Washington gaining a foothold in Central Asia.

Turkmenistan has offered vague assurances of support to the United States. It commands uninterrupted territory and air space from the Caspian Sea to the Afghan border. At a minimum, say analysts at Stratfor Inc., Washington will want overflight rights. If a ground war is to be launched, however, Turkmenistan could be a valuable staging area; it was from there that Soviet forces entered Afghanistan in 1979.

Uzbekistan has said it is willing to discuss any form of cooperation with Washington. It has a usable air base near the Afghan border and could provide a valuable base for ground infiltrations because the territory immediately across its frontier is controlled by the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance.

It might not be that simple.

Washington's war on terrorism -- particularly of the Islamist kind -- could provide legitimacy for political repression, warns Human Rights Watch.

The rights watchdog, in an open letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, warns that "some governments may cynically take advantage of this cause to justify their own internal crackdowns on perceived political opponents, 'separatists' or religious activists, in the expectation that the United States will now be silent."

The risk of such opportunism, the group says, could be greatest in Uzbekistan, where the government of President Islam Karimov in recent years has imprisoned and tortured thousands of non-violent Muslims for worshiping outside state controls.

Washington has begun sending military personnel there to prepare a staging area for operations in Afghanistan.

The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, accused of exploding car bombs and attacking civilians, was added to the official U.S. list of terrorist organizations four days after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

Uzbekistan and Tajikistan repress even apolitical forms of religious observance and organization as threats to ruling elites, according to the International Crisis Group (ICG), a think tank specializing in conflict resolution. This impulse, it adds, has only been reinforced by Russia, China, and the United States. Russia and China are fighting Muslim separatists in Chechnya and Xinjiang province, respectively.

Tajikistan and Uzbekistan also are in deep economic trouble and unrest is being fuelled by the growing gap between small elites, who benefit from privatization and other market-friendly reforms, and majorities that are being driven to economic desperation.

"Indications are increasing in some localities that a breaking point is near," according to a recent ICG report. "If it is reached, spontaneous uprisings or organized underground political activity, increasing militancy, and a readiness to seek the overthrow of current regimes can all be anticipated. The most dangerous social force is a desperate population that has little to lose."

In other words, economic aid and loans -- if conditioned on continued adherence to market-friendly policy prescriptions, or not conditioned at all -- could merely stoke the fires of revolt by fuelling disparity and corruption.

The question could soon become whether Washington is sufficiently interested in the region to make major investments not only in military security but also in local economies -- and in ways that don't increase disparity and discontent.