Bush-Putin friendship unlikely to resolve long term Central Asian issues


Eurasia Insight
June 1

Despite the grins and nicknames that marked US President George W. Bush’s May 24-28 summit with Russian chief Vladimir Putin, one expert on the region expects that the US military presence in Central Asia could disrupt accord between the two countries in the near future.

In a May 28 panel discussion at the Eurasia Group research firm, Ian Bremmer told an audience that the apparent good working relationship developed by Bush and Putin, and Russia’s accession to provisional NATO membership, would not resolve long-term structural weaknesses in Russia’s relations with the West. Pronouncements that the summit marked the Cold War’s end, Bremmer noted, indicated some anxiety about the possibility that relations between the two countries could cool if Putin loses power or if the Russian defense establishment becomes more hawkish. In particular, Bremmer said during a question-and-answer period, American soldiers’ protracted stay in Central Asia could aggravate tensions that the recent treaty cannot soothe.

"Discussions on Central Asia did not occur in any substantive way" during the May summit, said Bremmer, who heads the Eurasia Group. This is troubling, given that American soldiers are now training and equipping Georgian law enforcement agencies and settling in to camps in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Inertia, Bremmer said, could lead to a prolonged American presence that lacks oversight from important American officials.

Bremmer told listeners that the US Department of Defense did not seem intent on creating robust partnerships with Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, but also noted that military bases often perpetuate themselves once they receive funding. "I can imagine scenarios where the bases stay for a rather long time without a high-level US presence," he told the audience, "and that can be a source of dramatic tension with the retrospective-looking members of Putin’s defense wing."

Putin asserted support for American military efforts in Afghanistan in the first days after the September 11 attacks, but the extent of US military involvement in what has been Russia’s backyard has remained a sensitive question.

Russia also worries about American incursions into the Caspian Sea, which may contain huge reserves of oil. Bremmer noted that, while Bush acknowledged Russia as a key world energy supplier during the summit, questions about the US Caspian policy also remain unresolved. One reason may be that antiterrorist efforts in Georgia, through which Caspian pipelines would flow, may have clouded discussions about how the United States and Russia can jointly exploit the sea. "The biggest tensions between Bush and Putin have been on pipeline policy, which hasn’t changed in ten years," he said.

Bremmer’s colleague, Eurasia Group research director Alexander Zaslavsky, also saw US policy in Central Asia potentially sapping current Russo-American camaraderie. Russia is much less hostile to Iran than the Bush administration wants countries to be, he noted, and it may also be more territorial about its former republics. "NATO will have its first test case on the status of Iran," said Zaslavsky, "and the status of the former Soviet republics will be one of the most contentious issues." Though Bush and Putin seemed to be enjoying themselves in Moscow, the view their staffs take of the region beyond Moscow may have a more lasting effect on the region.