U.S. Interests in Central Asia and Their Challenges

Q2 Social Sciences
Stephen J. Blank
{"title":"U.S. Interests in Central Asia and Their Challenges","authors":"Stephen J. Blank","doi":"10.3200/DEMO.15.3.312-334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionCentral Asia's importance to the United States is growing. In 2004 Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Central Asians that \"stability in the area is of paramount importance and vital national interest.\"1 Yet today U.S. interests in the region face attacks from three sides: Russia and China, the Taliban and their supporters, and the authoritarian misrule of Central Asian governments. Worse yet, some local governments might fail, adding to these threats. Former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte told Congress in 2006,Central Asia remains plagued by political stagnation and repression, rampant corruption, widespread poverty, and widening socio-economic inequalities, and other problems that nurture radical sentiment and terrorism. In the worst, but not implausible, case central authority in one or more of these states could evaporate as rival clans or regions vie for power-opening the door to an expansion of terrorist and criminal activity on the model of failed states like Somalia and, when it was under Taliban rule, Afghanistan.2Negroponte's successor, Vice Admiral (Ret.) J. Michael McConnell, was even more pessimistic in his 2007 testimony:There is no guarantee that elite and societal turmoil across Central Asia will stay within the confines of existing autocratic systems. In the worst, but not implausible case, central authority in one or more of these states could evaporate as rival political factions, clans or regions vie for power-opening the door to a dramatic expansion of terrroist and criminal activity along the lines of a failed state.3Neither is this merely an American perception. When Turkmenistan's dictator, Sapirmurat Niyazov, suddently died on December 21, 2006, the local media openly expressed speculation and anxiety over Turkmenistan's and Central Asia's future.4While some attacks on U.S. policy are or were unavoidable, others stem from shortcomings in policy that gave these adversaries opportunities to attack it to their own advantage. This article addresses these deficiencies and makes recommendations for extricating America from its present difficulties.U.S. interests in Central Asia are primarily strategic. They derive first from Central Asia's proximity to Russia, Iran, and China.5 Indeed,The United States and the West in general find themselves increasingly dependent on the continued stability and development of the Central Eurasian region. The United States is heavily invested in Afghanistan, and its engagement there and in Central Asian states is a long-term endeavor. The future of this region has a considerable bearing on the development of the Global War on Terrorism and in general on U.S. security interests in Eurasia; the maintenance of access to airspace and territory in the heart of Asia; the development of alternative sources of energy; and the furthering of freedom and democratic development.6Hence Russia and China view any U.S. presence in Central Asia as a standing challenge, if not threat, to their vital interests. Those interests are inherently imperial, entailing Central Asian states' diminished sovereignty. Therefore America's paramount objective under the Clinton and Bush administrations has been to uphold these states' integrity, independence, sovereignty, and security against Russo-Chinese efforts to dominate them and circumscribe their freedom.7 As Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Lorne Craner stated in 2004,The primary strategic goal of the United States in Central Asia is to see the development of independent, democratic, and stable states, committed to the kind of political and economic reform that is essential to modern societies and on the path to integration and to the world economy. The strategy that we follow is based on simultaneous pursuit of three related goals. The first of these goals is security. Our counterterrorism cooperation bolsters the sovereignty and independence of these states and provides them with the stability needed to undertake the reforms that are in their long-term interest. …","PeriodicalId":39667,"journal":{"name":"Demokratizatsiya","volume":"37 1","pages":"312-334"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Demokratizatsiya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.15.3.312-334","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

IntroductionCentral Asia's importance to the United States is growing. In 2004 Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Central Asians that "stability in the area is of paramount importance and vital national interest."1 Yet today U.S. interests in the region face attacks from three sides: Russia and China, the Taliban and their supporters, and the authoritarian misrule of Central Asian governments. Worse yet, some local governments might fail, adding to these threats. Former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte told Congress in 2006,Central Asia remains plagued by political stagnation and repression, rampant corruption, widespread poverty, and widening socio-economic inequalities, and other problems that nurture radical sentiment and terrorism. In the worst, but not implausible, case central authority in one or more of these states could evaporate as rival clans or regions vie for power-opening the door to an expansion of terrorist and criminal activity on the model of failed states like Somalia and, when it was under Taliban rule, Afghanistan.2Negroponte's successor, Vice Admiral (Ret.) J. Michael McConnell, was even more pessimistic in his 2007 testimony:There is no guarantee that elite and societal turmoil across Central Asia will stay within the confines of existing autocratic systems. In the worst, but not implausible case, central authority in one or more of these states could evaporate as rival political factions, clans or regions vie for power-opening the door to a dramatic expansion of terrroist and criminal activity along the lines of a failed state.3Neither is this merely an American perception. When Turkmenistan's dictator, Sapirmurat Niyazov, suddently died on December 21, 2006, the local media openly expressed speculation and anxiety over Turkmenistan's and Central Asia's future.4While some attacks on U.S. policy are or were unavoidable, others stem from shortcomings in policy that gave these adversaries opportunities to attack it to their own advantage. This article addresses these deficiencies and makes recommendations for extricating America from its present difficulties.U.S. interests in Central Asia are primarily strategic. They derive first from Central Asia's proximity to Russia, Iran, and China.5 Indeed,The United States and the West in general find themselves increasingly dependent on the continued stability and development of the Central Eurasian region. The United States is heavily invested in Afghanistan, and its engagement there and in Central Asian states is a long-term endeavor. The future of this region has a considerable bearing on the development of the Global War on Terrorism and in general on U.S. security interests in Eurasia; the maintenance of access to airspace and territory in the heart of Asia; the development of alternative sources of energy; and the furthering of freedom and democratic development.6Hence Russia and China view any U.S. presence in Central Asia as a standing challenge, if not threat, to their vital interests. Those interests are inherently imperial, entailing Central Asian states' diminished sovereignty. Therefore America's paramount objective under the Clinton and Bush administrations has been to uphold these states' integrity, independence, sovereignty, and security against Russo-Chinese efforts to dominate them and circumscribe their freedom.7 As Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Lorne Craner stated in 2004,The primary strategic goal of the United States in Central Asia is to see the development of independent, democratic, and stable states, committed to the kind of political and economic reform that is essential to modern societies and on the path to integration and to the world economy. The strategy that we follow is based on simultaneous pursuit of three related goals. The first of these goals is security. Our counterterrorism cooperation bolsters the sovereignty and independence of these states and provides them with the stability needed to undertake the reforms that are in their long-term interest. …
美国在中亚的利益及其挑战
中亚对美国的重要性与日俱增。2004年,美国副国务卿理查德·阿米蒂奇(Richard Armitage)对中亚人说,“该地区的稳定至关重要,事关国家利益。”然而今天,美国在该地区的利益面临着来自三个方面的攻击:俄罗斯和中国,塔利班及其支持者,以及中亚各国政府的专制暴政。更糟糕的是,一些地方政府可能会失败,增加这些威胁。前国家情报总监内格罗蓬特在2006年对国会说,中亚仍然受到政治停滞和镇压、猖獗的腐败、普遍的贫困、日益扩大的社会经济不平等以及滋生激进情绪和恐怖主义的其他问题的困扰。在最坏的情况下(但并非不可能),一个或多个国家的中央权威可能会随着敌对的部族或地区争夺权力而消失——这为恐怖主义和犯罪活动的扩张打开了大门,就像索马里和塔利班统治下的阿富汗这样的失败国家一样。他在2007年的证词中甚至更为悲观:无法保证整个中亚的精英阶层和社会动荡将停留在现有专制制度的范围内。在最糟糕但并非不可能的情况下,随着敌对的政治派别、部族或地区争夺权力,这些国家中的一个或多个国家的中央权威可能会消失——这为恐怖主义和犯罪活动的急剧扩张打开了大门,就像一个失败的国家一样。这也不仅仅是美国人的看法。2006年12月21日,土库曼斯坦独裁者尼亚佐夫突然去世,当地媒体公开表达了对土库曼斯坦和中亚未来的猜测和焦虑。虽然对美国政策的一些攻击是不可避免的,或者是不可避免的,但其他一些攻击源于政策上的缺陷,这些缺陷给了对手攻击美国政策的机会,使其对自己有利。本文论述了这些不足,并对美国走出当前困境提出了建议。中国在中亚的利益主要是战略性的。它们首先源于中亚靠近俄罗斯、伊朗和中国。事实上,美国和西方国家普遍发现自己越来越依赖于中亚地区的持续稳定和发展。美国在阿富汗投入了大量资金,美国在阿富汗和中亚国家的参与是一项长期努力。该地区的未来对全球反恐战争的发展以及总体上对美国在欧亚大陆的安全利益有着相当大的影响;维持进入亚洲中心空域和领土的通道;发展替代能源;以及自由和民主发展的进一步推进。因此,俄罗斯和中国将美国在中亚的存在视为对两国关键利益的长期挑战,甚至是威胁。这些利益本质上是帝国主义的,牵涉到中亚国家主权的削弱。因此,在克林顿和布什政府的领导下,美国的首要目标是维护这些国家的完整、独立、主权和安全,反对中俄对它们的统治和限制它们的自由正如负责民主、人权和劳工事务的助理国务卿洛恩·克拉纳(Lorne Craner)在2004年所指出的那样,美国在中亚的主要战略目标是看到独立、民主和稳定的国家的发展,这些国家致力于政治和经济改革,这对现代社会、一体化和世界经济的道路至关重要。我们遵循的战略是基于同时追求三个相关的目标。第一个目标是安全。我们的反恐合作加强了这些国家的主权和独立,并为它们提供进行符合其长期利益的改革所需的稳定。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Demokratizatsiya
Demokratizatsiya Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Occupying a unique niche among literary journals, ANQ is filled with short, incisive research-based articles about the literature of the English-speaking world and the language of literature. Contributors unravel obscure allusions, explain sources and analogues, and supply variant manuscript readings. Also included are Old English word studies, textual emendations, and rare correspondence from neglected archives. The journal is an essential source for professors and students, as well as archivists, bibliographers, biographers, editors, lexicographers, and textual scholars. With subjects from Chaucer and Milton to Fitzgerald and Welty, ANQ delves into the heart of literature.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信