Eurasia.Org
October 15
ncreased US involvement in Central Asia could easily aggravate existing societal tensions, according to several leading experts on the region. As a result, the United States risks becoming entangled in brewing Central Asian political and social difficulties.
Three scholars – Boston University’s Thomas Barfield and Harvard University’s John Schoeberlein and Kelly McMann – discussed the potential regional consequences of the US anti-terrorism campaign in Afghanistan during a talk titled "Global Terrorism in Central Asia," held October 10 in Boston.
The United States has formally offered security assistance to Uzbekistan in exchange for US access to Uzbek military facilities. Schoeberlein, who is the director of the Forum for Central Asian Studies at Harvard, suggested that such a security guarantee is fraught with danger for the United States.
He explained that a US military presence could encourage Uzbek President Islam Karimov to intensify a crackdown against non-state-sanctioned forms of religious expression. Schoeberlein drew parallels between Karimov’s tactics and Stalin’s Great Terror: large prison labor camps, waves of arbitrary arrests, allegations of evidence planting and arrest quotas by local officials.
The crackdown is ostensibly a reaction to a three-year insurgency waged by the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). However, Schoeberlein has said that government repression is doing more to fuel armed opposition to Karimov’s government than to crush it. If the United States becomes involved in the Uzbek government’s campaign against the IMU, Schoeberlein says it could spur development of Central Asian underground terrorist movements along the model of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network.
President George Bush’s mention of the IMU in his September 20 address to Congress gave the group "extraordinary prominence," says Schoeberlein, who considers the movement "pretty small fry" and, arguably, not definable as a global terrorist group. He notes that the IMU has not demonstrated the ability to conduct large-scale military operations. The group’s insurgent actions have mostly taken place in remote mountain regions and border areas with limited impact on civilians.
In addition, Schoeberlein expressed concern about the possible radicalization of the Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organization that currently espouses the non-violent reestablishment of a unified Islamic state in Central Asia. Hizb ut-Tahrir operates informally, in cells scattered throughout Uzbek villages; Uzbek police have jailed its members along with thousands of other citizens in the name of a crackdown on extremism.
Schoeberlein also described a Washington-Tashkent alliance as a "a serious [geopolitical] problem." The increased US profile in Central Asia could spur Russia to act in a destabilizing manner in a potential attempt to reassert its influence in the region.
McMann, an associate at Harvard’s Davis Center for Russian Studies, predicted an increase in US economic assistance to Central Asian states. She indicated a need for strict oversight of foreign assistance. Poorly targeted aid, or the misappropriation of development funds, could end up exacerbating social frustrations, McMann said.
Before September 11, McMann noted that economic aid had been tied to the implementation of economic reforms and the adherence to human rights norms by Central Asian governments. Under the new geopolitical reality, such assistance conditions likely no longer apply. Thus, it is possible that even though more aid is directed to Central Asia, less funds will benefit the distressed population. "What is good for the governments of Central Asia," McMann said, "is not necessarily good for the people of Central Asia."
Meanwhile, Barfield, a professor of anthropology, expressed hope that a post-Taliban order in Afghanistan can develop relatively peacefully. Barfield foresees a loose coalition government with a weak central leadership, whose main role will be to help process and distribute international development assistance. Given this restricted mission, he sees the reinstatement of the exiled Afghan king, 88-year-old Mohammed Zahir Shah, as "the perfect foil for a federal model." The king’s age and weakness are advantages, according to Barfield. "No one fears he will double deal and impose his will over the objections of regional leaders."