Abdujalil Abdurasulov, specially for the IPP

 

Background

‘Post-revolutionary’ Kyrgyzstan’s foreign policy could well be described as erratic. Although the principles and values of Kyrgyz foreign policy remain the same in rhetoric, in reality, they have grown very unpredictable. In particular, many observers have noted important changes in the atmosphere of Kyrgyz-US relations.

President Bakiev had explicitly supported the declaration of the SCO summit in July 2005, demanding the US to set a date for withdrawal of its troops from Central Asia, since the “active [combat] phase of the anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan [had] been completed.”[1]

Surprisingly, less than one month later, during the visit of US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, President Bakiev expressed full support to the anti-terrorist coalition, and assured Rumsfeld that American forces could stay on the Kyrgyzstani soil as long as there is need for the base in relation to operations in Afghanistan.[2] However, in February 2006, Kyrgyzstan asked to raise the rent for the anti-terrorist air base 100-fold, from $2 million to $200 million. In April 2006, President Bakiev went further to threaten the USA to annul the agreement on the military base unless America agreed on the rent issue by June first.

In July, the parties reached an agreement on rent rate for the military base. The compromise figure was reported at $150 million, although no information was provided on what part of the figure was rent for the Ganci air base. On 19 October 2006 MP Bolot Maripov said that the rent payment would only reach $60-70 million, referring to the data of the Security Council and the government of the Kyrgyz Republic provided in response to MPs’ inquiry.[3]

Just to add some color, precisely during the last round of negotiations on air the base, Kyrgyzstan expelled two US diplomats for having “inappropriate” contacts with nongovernmental organizations.

A Pragmatic Policy?

There has been a noticeable change in foreign policy discourse. Former President Akaev used to put strong emphasis on certain liberal and egalitarian values in foreign policy in the form of his Silk Road Diplomacy. This rhetoric has since changed. The current Foreign Minister, Jekshenkulov, named pragmatism as one of the features that differentiate new the foreign policy concept from the previous one.[4] The phrase “national interests,” though not well defined, has been extensively used by both the President and Foreign Minister.

The increase in the rent for the US air base could well be a demonstration of the move towards more pragmatism in foreign policy. In justifying the raise of the rent payment, the Kyrgyz leadership even referred to some calculations that suggested a need for a 100-fold increase of the rent. For a country whose authorities hold weak legitimacy, and which maintains an annual budget of about $500 million, an increase in the rent for the airbase to $200 million would indeed be very expedient step.

However, the bigger question is whether such pragmatic moves would lead to the desired outcome for the country, or whether Kyrgyzstan would have more losses than gains?

The major feature of Kyrgyz foreign policy has been its inconsistency, as illustrated by the authorities’ position towards Ganci air base. Inconsistent, and thus unpredictable, relations cannot be considered effective, especially for a small and dependent state. Kyrgyzstan’s erratic foreign policy may lead to a deterioration of bilateral relations, which may have an unpredictable impact on both the external and internal affairs of the country.

Many observers and analysts believe that due to the high stakes of a “new great game,” the United States is not ready to abandon its military presence in Central Asia, and will use all means to stay in the region. Consequently, the argument goes, it is secure for Kyrgyzstan to actively lobby its interests, be it an issue of rent, or other another concern.

The question of how insistent would the United States be on the issue of the military base would probably better addressed by US policy makers. In the interests of Kyrgyzstan, however, it is vitally important to avoid distorting the overall geopolitical picture and getting an unfavorable scenario at the end. Inconsistency and unreliability make any partner state look for alternatives, for other more reliable options. In the case of the Ganci air base, constant new demands and conditions from the Kyrgyz side, inconsistent with previous agreements, would certainly make the US seriously consider alternative options. There should be no illusions about the scope of options for big powers in Central Asia.

Pragmatic foreign policy should not be focused on short-term financial benefits. First, the United States remains the world’s biggest military and financial player, able to promote its interests both in bilateral and multilateral settings. Due to the inherent asymmetrical size of leverage, small states such as Kyrgyzstan would be playing a risky game trying to take advantage of specific needs and/or interests of such a state. Obviously, the Kyrgyz authorities must pursue and protect the national interests of the country, but the very meaning of national interests must be defined first. Otherwise, prioritization of short-term and narrow interests may have adverse outcomes for the longer-term interests of the country.

Second, a pragmatic foreign policy should not be guided by a belief that worsening relations with one power means winning the favor of a second. There is an obvious great game taking place in Central Asia and in the wider region. However, the United States, Russia and China all have many other points of contact and cooperation. Issues related to Kyrgyzstan may well be decided by the big powers without Kyrgyzstan’s participation.

Counter-productive policy towards strategic partners may also have a negative impact on the domestic standing of political leadership. The country’s leadership has announced a higher standard of living, stronger economy, and further democratization as its goals. Sporadic moves towards distancing themselves from major partners, such as the US, may represent one factor undermining these stated goals, taking into account that their active involvement in the implementation of many projects, from economic reforms, to maintaining the public health system, to conflict prevention activities, to the enhancement of local government.

Political leaders, be it authorities or opposition figures, should not see foreign policy as a possibility to gain some political benefits in domestic struggle. The strategic national interests remain the same no matter what political party is in power. Involving foreign counties in domestic politics will inevitably lead to the political entrenchment of foreign policy, pushing different political parties towards different foreign partners. As each faction gained momentum in their influence, they would attempt to alter foreign policy to ensure external support. Eventually, this circumstance would reduce the country’s independence, and make its foreign policy as inconsistent and unstable as internal everyday political struggle.

Due to its location and many other prerequisites, Kyrgyzstan has no option but play with many actors. Given its economic vitality and level of dependence on other countries, Kyrgyzstan has no option but work hard to maintain productive relations with all of its major partners. In this situation, no rash decisions and statements must be allowed. Certainly the country’s leadership must do their best to maximize benefits for Kyrgyzstan, but this must be done in accordance with a consistent foreign policy strategy, ruling out daily U-turns in relations with its important partners.

 Abdujalil Abdurasulov, independent political analyst