NATO stays in Afghanistan to expand to Central Asia

Click banner for more info

US President Barak Obama says NATO is staying in Afghanistan all the way through 2016. To make the stay more comfortable the Alliance proceeds with securing its positions in oil-rich and otherwise important locations along the Russian and Chinese borders. How does NATO view its cooperation with the Central Asian states? Should Moscow see those moves as a challenge to its regional interests?

And what are the prospects for NATO’s expansion in Asia? Voice of Russia is discussing it with Professor Dr. Conrad Schetter, the Director for Research at Bonn International Center for Conversion, and Boris Volkhonsky, the Head of the Asia program at the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies.

NATO is no longer planning to leave Afghanistan, at least in 2014 – a deadline previously set by the Obama administration. US forces will complete their withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2016, President Barack Obama said Tuesday, speaking in the White House Rose Garden.

The change of plans in Afghanistan has coincided in time with the official opening of a new NATO liaison office this time in Uzbekistan, one of the five Central Asian former Soviet republics. Addressing the opening ceremony in Tashkent on May, 18, James Appathurai, NATO's special representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia, said NATO's partnership with Central Asian nations is not in competition with their relationship with Russia. Yet, Moscow regards NATO further expansion not only as a break on its promise not to expand along Russian borders, but also as an open geopolitical challenge.

Professor Dr. Conrad Schetter, the Director for Research at Bonn International Center for Conversion:

"I think in the last years there was a situation in which it was unsure how long the NATO troops will stay in Afghanistan due to the fact that the Afghan President was reluctant to sign the agreement. And we know that both candidates who are running now in the final election will agree for a longer stay of NATO troops in Afghanistan. So, now the idea is to reduce the NATO troops in Afghanistan to about roughly 10 000 soldiers for, at least, the next two or three years.

In my reading, I understand that NATO, and particularly the Americans, have a long-term interest to stay in Afghanistan. This means that my expectation is that even after 2016 there will be NATO troops or, at least, the American troops in the country.

Why would they want to stay?

I think there are many reasons why the Americans have an interest in this region. And it is not only Afghanistan, but the whole region. First, we have to think about that it is the region with the highest number of nuclear powers worldwide. We’ve got here India, we’ve got China, we’ve got countries such as Pakistan involved, we’ve got the Russian influences and the Iranian influence. So, all the countries which are already the nuclear powers or attempt to become the nuclear powers.

Another reason of course is that geopolitically Afghanistan is of high importance for the Americans. Just think about the fragile state situation in the countries like Pakistan. If you think about Iran, it is still the most wanted enemy of the Americans. And think about the arising superpower of China. And also, what we find here is the Central Asia region in which there are many interests for the American side, particularly the natural resources of that area.

And somehow that coincides in time with the official opening of the NATO’s liaison office in Tashkent. As far as I remember, the relations between NATO and Uzbekistan have been not to say rocky, but rather cool.

I think there are always ups and downs. And the Uzbeks have always made a clear differentiation between the countries of NATO. For example, there has always been a quite tight relationship with the Germans, while a much more distant relationship with the Americans. This is why in Uzbekistan we can observe more or less ups and downs in the relationship and that they differentiate between the nations.

Nevertheless, it comes as a surprise, particularly in these days, that this office in Tashkent has been opened. It shows a somehow stronger emancipation of Uzbekistan particularly from Russia. We have to keep in mind that Uzbekistan is no longer a member of the CSTO – the Collective Security Treaty Organization – which is headed by the Russians.

So, there is a cooling down of the relationship between Tashkent and Moscow. And I think now the Uzbeks try to balance the power relationships by bringing in NATO, to show that they are open to all different kinds of political and military players but, on the other hand, also to show that they are independent.

As far as I remember NATO has criticized Uzbekistan for Andijan.

Right! The Americans, but also NATO, were criticizing Uzbekistan a lot particularly for the interior policy and Andijan incident. But we have to bear in mind that this was more or less ten years ago and in the internal politics of the countries of NATO the Andijan incident doesn’t play such a role anymore.

So, now there is an urgent need to get Uzbekistan as a partner, which is also important for the whole withdrawal from Afghanistan. Currently, the NATO troops have to bring back a lot of their stuff. Up till now there were more than 100 000 NATO troops in Afghanistan that are to be reduced to 15 000 and a lot of equipment has to be shipped back to the NATO states. Therefore, they need a kind of second way out. One the one side, they have the road across Pakistan. And the second exist point is via Uzbekistan.

Are you saying that cooperation with Uzbekistan is going to be limited to logistical issues?

This is what the NATO is saying, at least. They are saying it is just about logistics. I’m not sure. I could imagine that NATO has got a strong interest, particularly when we have this very volatile political situation in Afghanistan, to get a second pillar in the Central Asia. On the other side, we are also aware that Uzbekistan is a quite strong authoritarian country that it will be very hard to be a partner with, which is what NATO wants to do.

So, the Uzbeks are very independent and more or less they are the ones who are dictating the NATO what they have in mind and not vice versa.

And at the same time, we know that there are extremist organizations operating on the territory of Uzbekistan. Could the expansion of cooperation with NATO somehow result in their increased activity?

I don’t think so. It is not in the way that you will find boots on the ground in Uzbekistan. What I could imagine is a kind of training, that the NATO troops will do some training for the Uzbeks on how to cope with insurgents. This might be one issue – a kind of training capacity building. This might be the issue which is discussed between the Uzbeks and the NATO military.

I wouldn’t want to sound tactless, but NATO’s success in Afghanistan and their targeting of extremists has not been exactly successful, has it?

You are completely right! I think that what we observe in Afghanistan, particularly from the first days and onwards, is that NATO troops had to take a lot of lessons to learn on how to cope with insurgents. And even today, in many parts of the southeast Afghanistan we find out that there is no counterinsurgents strategy that works well. I completely agree with you that still the knowledge on counterinsurgency is quite limited.

Nevertheless, I feel that it might be, I don’t know, but it might be that the Uzbeks have a kind of interest just in the technical military dimension on how to do this kind of training. Even if they will not use, at least, it is a kind of knowledge exchange which might take place. But again, so far the NATO didn’t say anything about it, but I could imagine that it might be a level which both sides will agree on.

And up until now NATO has been performing a very delicate balancing act in that region, of course, pursuing its own interests and trying not to exasperate Russia. Does that imply that now they are no longer preoccupied with the latter?

I think that today, particularly with this opening of the office in Tashkent, the Russians are very aware about every step that NATO is doing in the Central Asia. And the Russians are also very clear about the fact that they dislike this. And I want to remind that when the Americans had the opportunity to use the Manas Airport in Kyrgyzstan, this wasn’t seen very positively by the Russians. The same way the Russians will also dislike what now happens in Tashkent.

But, of course, Kyrgyzstan is a different country from Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan is much more independent from Russia than Kyrgyzstan. So, here, what we can see is that this is a sting in the flesh of the Russian geopolitics. Particularly, if we think of a larger picture and think about the Ukrainian crisis, that now at this very moment the NATO is opening a new office in Tashkent, this is something the Russians will not like.

Do you think that we have any good reason to believe that we are threatened by this expansion?

I think that the Russians will have a careful look on what NATO is doing there. And so far, the NATO is saying that they only shifted this office from Alma-Ata to Tashkent, this is more kind of a routine. If it comes true that it is a kind of routine, I think that there is no reason for being very worried about this. If it comes true that the NATO is just having they liaison office with a few representatives, I think that it is fine. If they have much more, like an agreement coming between Uzbekistan and the NATO countries, I think this will be the point where the Russians will become much more worried about the situation there".

Boris Volkhonsky, the Head of the Asia program at the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies:

"Definitely, that is NATO’s long-term strategy not to establish, but to retain its presence in the Central Asia and Afghanistan as such. The whole operation there was not meant for Afghanistan only, it was meant as a possible base for expanding its influence over the former Soviet Central Asia republics and now independent states, and have access to the so-called great Middle East.

Therefore, the opening of a NATO office in Tashkent is just one of the episodes. It is maybe not very important as such, but it is a link in a greater chain which will consist of the remaining bases. We still don’t know how many bases will be retained in Afghanistan, but there will be the American bases there, because both presidential candidates in Afghanistan are in favor of it, unlike the outgoing President Hamid Karzai. So, this is a strategy to exert NATO and, primarily, the US’ influence upon the vast region spreading to the very so-called soft belly of Russia.

And of course, we should keep in mind that it is very close to China. And China is also exploiting its soft-power approach to the Central Asian republics, which is not very favourably looked at by the US.

So, after the 2010, when NATO adopted its new strategy, we can see it expanding both eastwards in Europe, we can see it expanding in the Central Asia. But the question is – does NATO have the necessary resources to do so?

This is a good question and, probably, it is one of the matters around which the whole great game is going on. You see, in 2011, I think, Hilary Clinton declared a pivot to Asia, which exactly meant the transition of the main focus from the ME to Asia Pacific. But later on, when John Kerry took the place of the Secretary of State, this policy was somehow revisited and most probably it was because of the lack of necessary financial means.

Now, if we look at that region – at Asia Pacific – the US is trying to reload its burden upon the regional powers like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and trying to involve India in the process, which is another issue. And the great ME still remains one of the main focuses. And, of course, East Europe, which is also a kind of policy of surrounding the countries which are not in favour of the US dominance in the world.

Do you see any logical long-term development of NATO expansion in Asia? Will it stop at some point?

The strength of any chain is measured not by the strongest link in the chain, but by the weakest link. So, the unlimited expansion of any international organization like this is wrought with lots of challenges and difficulties, because we see that by incorporating some rather weak economies into the EU, the UE is now suffering certain serious problems, both economically and, as the recent elections show, politically. So, the unlimited expansion of NATO is not going to be any different, I think".