Политология / 10.   Региональные политические процессы

Ospanova A.N, Beisenova P.M.

L. N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Astana city

Geopolitical origins of American policy in Central Asia

The Central Asia includes the five post-Soviet Republics, such as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. This is the region of the inner (non-oceanic) river flows, extending from China and India to the Near East. During the Soviet period the term “Central Asia” was used for the area around Mongolia, with the separate meaning of the name “Middle Asia” (and the latter did not include Kazakhstan. With regards of the modern international intercourse the idea of the “Central Asia” is the self-designation that appeared after the collapse of USSR. However, there are the alternative definitions, such as the American definition “Major Central Asia”, which includes Afghanistan and even part of Pakistan. As well there exists the range of other cultural-historical, geo-economically and geo-politically determined terms for the same region. Their fight presents the symbolized ideological starting point for the “New Big Game”, which participants, being the Great Powers, struggle for the regional dominancy.

The large proportion of the marine surface of the Caspian Sea basin is adjacent to the territory of the Central Asia. Its explored fuel resources (not including the share of Iran) currently makes up 85 billion barrels (11.6 billion tons) of oil, and the potential resources makes about additional 100 billion barrels (13.6 billion tons). American experts refers to the lower indexes of the explored Caspian resources (2.5-5 billion tones), but their evaluation of the potential resources are higher.

The general potential of the energy resources of the countries of the Central Asian region is as follows: for the natural gas –more than 12 trn.m³ (about 5 trn.m³ is explored), for gas condensate – about 1 billion tones, oil – about 13 billion tones. The explored resources of coal make up more than 4 billion tones.

Eurasia is the largest continent of the Earth and occupies the axial position in the geo-political relation. It is known, that about 75% of the human population lives in Eurasia. The major part of the global natural resources as well is located there, both in the enterprises and under its surface. More than 60% of the Gross National Product (GNP) and about three-quarters of all known global resources belong to Eurasia.

All potential political and economic challenges to the American dominancy are originated from Eurasia. On the global basis the Eurasian might significantly exceeds the American. In the opinion of Bzhezinskiy Z., Eurasia is the chessboard for the major dominancy fight, where the dominancy of the USA will be established and contested [1].

The United States of America pursued several strategic objectives in the Major Central Asia as follows:

1) Warfighting against terrorism and establishment of the USA-closed security infrastructure;

2) Provision of the opportunity for Afghanistan and its neighboring countries to defend themselves from the radical Islamism and the drug traffic;

3) Strengthening of the regional economy and enhancement of the most significant National institutions to the level where the region is capable to become political and economical bridge between the Near East and South-East Asia;

4) Improvement of the regional trade relations and the appropriate transport infrastructure;

5) Stimulation of the democratic political systems setting the pattern for other countries with the numerous Muslim populations. Advancement to these objectives is the best to be performed on the regional basis.

The Washington's policy in the Central Asian countries is subdivided into the several stages which already today can be dated back. The initial period, covering the first-half of 1990 years (to be more precise, 1991-1996) was characterized by the range of factors that determined this policy in the specified way. The following ones should be attributed to them: firstly, the USA unofficially recognized the geo-political responsibility of Russia and its interest for this region; secondly, the main object of the Washington’s interest in the context of strategic security, was the future of the soviet nuclear capacity, located in the territory of Kazakhstan, and finally, the White House showed the certain anxiety regarding the prospective strengthening of Islamic position in the region, especially taking into account the close neighborhood of Iran to Central Asia [2].

The second stage (1996-2001) stipulated the new priorities in the USA strategy. Thus, the problem of hydrocarbon resources of the Caspian region was put forward, and the project of the pipeline bypassing Russia and Iran was designed; later this project was named the Baku-Tbilisi-Dzheikhan Oil Pipeline (BTD). In 1997, Central Asia and Caspian Region were announced as “the zone of vital importance for USA” and included into the sphere of responsibility of the USA Central Command (CENTCOM). These issues are reflected in the so-called “Telbott Doctrine”. USA confirmed that they were not planning to establish in Central Asia its monopolistic strategic presence, but at the same time they made it obviously clear that they will never permit it to the other Great Powers. At this stage Washington practically cancelled to consider the “special interests” of Moscow in this region.

That period became the beginning of the review of USA’s relation to the role of Turkey and China in the CA, which activity was earlier considered by the White House as the positive factor, theoretically restricting the influence of the Kremlin. Apparently, the United States of America have decided to assume the prime responsibility for the development of the countries in this region. On this stage the USA actively supported the development of the pipeline project from the Caspian Sea bypassing Russia and Iran which has became for that time the main geo-political plan of Washington in the region. By the end of XX century they started to worry about the growing threat to the CA countries from the crusading Islamic regimen of Talibs in Afghanistan.

The beginning of the third stage (2001-2005) coincided with the dramatic events of September, 11^th, 2001.The USA deployed the large-scaled fight against the international terrorism with the crusading Islamic radicals, held the military operation of Afghanistan aligned the military bases on CA countries if the frameworks of the counterterrorist campaign [3].

It is necessary to note, that the new approaches in the USA policy were outlined immediately after coming to power of the republican administration of George Bush, but in the view of tumultuous events of 2001, the corrective actions of the Central-Asian strategy of Washington have merged into the general context of the fight against the international terrorism.

In fact, the new Central-Asian line of USA was outlined with the establishment of the National Security Strategy, having become its component. CA appeared to be necessary for USA as a part of the united front aimed at the fight against the international terrorism, and at the same time – as the strategic object for support of the energy security supply of America. At this stage USA tries to generate its own European strategy, providing the strategic closing-in with Russia and India, stabilization of relations with China, transformation of hydrocarbon resources of Eurasia (Siberia, Caspian region and CA) into OPEC alternative, expansion of NATO to the East and changing of the character of relations with Western European allies [4]. To a greater or lesser degree, the Eurasian strategy of Washington has the definite impact on the CA republics.

At this stage, the USA have originally ratified their military strategic presence in the region, with the gradual expansion of their presence together with NATO. Cooperation of Washington with the CA states in the military strategic sphere has dramatically increased. At the same time USA tensed the pressure on the countries of the region in the frameworks of its policy of the “democracy support”, keenly criticizing different CA regimes for their policy on human rights, which influenced the relations of the CA countries with the White House. One more negative factor for Washington was the promotion in CA countries of the other interested states, such as Russia and China, which on the mutually beneficial basis and in the frameworks of the multilateral cooperation (SCO) made the attempt to restrict the USA influence in the region.

As the result of the USA inconsiderate support of various “color revolutions” movements (the change of the governing post-soviet regimes), in 2003-2005 in the territory of the Commonwealth of the Independent States there was the increasing concern of the governments of the CA countries, as well as of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China about the results of the American policy. After the events in Kyrgyzstan (overthrowing of the President, Akayev A.) and in Uzbekistan (mutiny in the city of Andizhan) in spring 2005, the vision of the USA strategy in the region started to be the pronounced negative both on the behalf of the republics of the region, and as well on the behalf of the “major” SCO partners. In summer of the same year all the members of SCO raised the question on the terms of presence of Washington bases in the CA countries. Already in autumn the de-escalation of the USA military presence has started in Uzbekistan.

Since 2005 the strategic circles of USA discuss the new geo-political project on the establishment under the authority of Washington of the so-called “Major Central Asia” (MCA). The subject matter of this plan is to unite into the integrated military-strategic and geo-political the CA states and the Afghanistan and, perhaps, some other neighboring regions.

Thus, in 2005 there were outlined the new approaches in the USA strategy in CA regions, that was expressed (as well) in the MCA project. These Washington’s innovations regarding CA were the consequence of its global strategy of reformation of the large-scaled geo-political spaces of Eurasia (including the project on establishment of the “Major Near East). This way, by 2006 the American strategy and policy in CA enters the new fourth stage of their development [5].

For today only the general plan is outlined for the future USA strategy. Evidently, it should comprise the following components: the formation of the Major Central Asia that means the inclusion of the region into the strategy of the White House in Afghanistan, states of South Asia and Middle East; getting back to the policy of “containment” of Russia (and, probably, of China) in CA; aggravation of confrontation with Iran; reactivation of USA in the Caspian Region; increase of the NATO part and etc.

References:

1. Bzhezinskiy Z. Velikaya shakhmatnaya doska. Gospodstvo Ameriki i ego geostrategicheskie imperativy. – M.: Mezhdunarodnyie otnosheniya, 2010.-256 s.

2. Zheng Kung Fu. Geopolitica Kazakhstana. – Almaty: Zheti Zhargy, 1999.-456s.

3. Gearoid O Tuathail, Dalby S., Routledge P. Introduction to geopolitics, 2000.-16 p.

4. Kydyrbekuly D. Geostrategiya Ameriki v Kazakhstane: ot globalnogo k malomu izmereniyu. – Almaty: “MerSal”, 2003. – 280 s.

5. Nartov N. Geopolotika: Uchebnik dlya VUZov. – M.: UNITI, 1999. – 133 s.