ON DECEMBER 21, 2006 top US officials summoned Ariel Cohen for an urgent meeting – a long-standing leader of Turkmenistan had died that morning. In anticipation of fresh opportunities, US policy-makers turned to the Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow for advice. Cohen had only three words to say: “Gas! Get it!”
Four years later, at a Forum “Update on Central Asia: Security, Stability, and US Policy” held at the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute on September 23, Cohen along with his colleagues Alexandros Petersen, Atlantic Council and Ambassador Peirre Morel, EU Special Envoy for Central Asia lamented the absence of an official, formulated foreign policy and active engagement of the United States and the EU in Central Asia. How could a region that is so strategically and geopolitically important in relation to Russia, Afghanistan, China and Iran be continuously overlooked? The experts warned that passive and disengaged policy could lead to dangerous outcomes in Central Asia, which with Taliban take over, risks becoming the frontline of war on terror in post-conflict Afghanistan.
Policy experts also pointed out that U.S. policy is based on much ado about Russia. They encouraged “reimagining Eurasia” and approaching Central Asian countries based on merit, rather than their relationship with Russia.
In trying to formulate their recommendations, however, the experts made the same mistakes on which they called out policy-makers. In a two-hour presentation they failed to mention a single Central Asian merit, other than gas.
A FEW DAYS after Turkmenbashi’s sudden death Former Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov and Gazprom head, Alexei Miller attended the funeral in Ashgabad. The Chinese delegation to the funeral was, by far, the largest foreign contingent. Chinese policy-makers steer clear of touchy issues such as human rights and civil society development. Likewise, fellow counterparts in Russia have proved themselves ready to sell out on these issues. Perhaps, in advocating for a sincere relationship with Central Asian countries, experts should focus on ramifications and responsibilities that come with that kind of commitment, unless, of course, they want a policy in Central Asia that mirrors US policy towards Saudi Arabia.
Nice to read one of your posts again after so long! I’m looking forward to more thoughts and stories on central asia and the caucasus…What do you think an official, formulated policy should or could include?
Thank you! I think, first of all, talking about a general formulated policy on Central Asia or Eurasia is non-sensical, each country is different and deserves to be treated differently – no need to lump them under one policy, as the experts are saying. We don’t have an East Asian policy do we? or a Caucasus one, we treat Georgia different from Armenia. So a formulated policy should be catered to each nation and formulated as a result of increased interaction between our nations, not just between politicians.
I think the experts are right in that our relationship with Central Asian countries cannot remain “one-dimentional.” One expert asked why is it that we only care about governance in Kyrgyzstan, energy in Turkmenistan, security in Tajikistan, etc. So an official policy should include all of the above and not overlook human rights, etc.
She’s back! I am so glad to see you on here and will comment in my first window