HOME	Your Most Trusted Source of Foreign News and Views About the United States

By Novosti commentator Pyotr Goncharov

July 25, 2005

Original Article (English)

Map of Central Asia

Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld’s visit to Kyrgyzstan on Monday was expected. Washington had to make a statement after the six-member Shanghai Cooperation Organization - Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan and other Central Asian states - called on the counter-terrorist coalition (read: the U.S.) to set a date for the withdrawal of its military bases, synchronized with the end of operations in Afghanistan.

General Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained what these bases mean to the U.S.

"Central Asia is important to the United States for lots of reasons, not just for operations in Afghanistan," he said in his first reaction to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s statement.

One of the main reasons is the strategic proximity of the bases to China and Russia, both of which still dominate the region. But the key reason is the capacity that the bases give Washington to influence the foreign and domestic policies of Central Asian nations. Losing the bases would be tantamount to losing the region.

The U.S. has bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, and judging by the resolute tone of Uzbek President Islam Karimov, the American base at Khanabad, Uzbekistan will have to go. This will greatly increase the importance of the Gansi base at the Manas airport outside the Kyrgyz capital.

Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev

Monday's visit was Rumsfeld's second to Bishkek, and both have been made on an emergency basis. During his first visit after the March unrest there, the Pentagon chief seemingly convinced [Kyrgyz President] Kurmanbek Bakiyev to continue the previous regime's policy vis-a-vis the bases, regardless of operations in Afghanistan. But Bishkek's [capital of Kyrgyzstan] stand has changed, and this does not please the U.S.

Will Rumsfeld convince Bakiyev, whose inauguration is set for August 14, to let the bases stay? Does he have arguments for this?

Stephen Young, U.S. Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, said on the eve of the republic’s parliamentary elections that the U.S. had invested heavily in the development of democracy and civil society in Kyrgyzstan, and would like to see the fruits of this assistance.

Will Washington demand that Bishkek agree to "synchronize" the continuance of the Gansi military base, not to the threat of terrorism coming from Afghanistan, but to other, regional or global, threats?

Former Kyrgyz President Askar Akayev viewed the U.S. bases with this suspicion, although at the time, granting the use of the Manas base was a small change in bilateral relations. Bishkek knew that the U.S. might use the Kyrgyzstan's giant foreign debt (by local standards) as leverage, but which Kyrgyzstan hoped to repay the Paris Club through restructuring. By allowing debt repayment, Washington risked losing the base, which Bishkek said almost openly.

[Editor’s Note: The Paris Club is a group of wealthy countries that assist with the payment difficulties of debtor nations].

But the situation has changed, and Washington knows this. It plans to make a new offer that Bishkek "cannot refuse" in return for a promise not to raise the issue of base withdrawal.

After the Kyrgyz presidential election, Bakiyev said at his first press conference that Kyrgyzstan's relations with the U.S. "should not be limited to the American base at Manas." Will he confirm this stand now?