Kyrgyzstan: Does it really want to close US base?
By Fred Weir | Moscow correspondent 02.04.09
Pack your bags.
That’s what President Kurmanbek Bakiyev of Kyrgyzstan told about 1,000 US personnel who’ve been stationed at the Manas airbase since 2001. This is the last US military base in former Soviet Central Asia.
But President Bakiyev made the call under pressure from Moscow.
Does he really mean it?
The order came after Moscow extended a $2-billion loan and $150-million gift to Kyrgyzstan, and Mr. Bakiyev criticized the annual US rent of $63 million as too little.
“Eight years passed. We repeatedly discussed with the United States the issue of economic compensation for staying at the base in Kyrgyzstan, but we didn’t find understanding,” Bakiyev said.
One hour from Kabul
Manas, a sprawling installation that houses scores of US fighter planes and transport aircraft about 1-hour flight from the Afghan capital of Kabul, has been a key staging point for NATO operations in Afghanistan. Losing it would be a severe blow to Washington as it prepares to boost US forces in the region and searches for alternative supply lines to replace the troubled route through Pakistan.
The US is not without options.
As the Monitor reported yesterday, the attacks on US convoys in Pakistan are pushing the US to renew ties with Uzbekistan.
A US spokesman suggested Bakiyev’s gambit is aimed at wresting more cash from Washington, since rent for Manas has been poverty-stricken Kyrgyzstan’s biggest single source of revenue.
“I think it’s political positioning…. We have a standing contract, and they’re making millions off our presence there,” Colonel Greg Julian, US military spokesman in Afghanistan, told journalists.
All Roads Go Through Moscow Now
But Russian experts say the message is that the US will have to talk to Moscow, not Bishkek, if it wants to operate in the former Soviet region in future.
The Kremlin, which assented to the base as a “temporary” measure following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, is miffed that the US appears to have settled down in Manas permanently, they say.
“The closure of Manas should be read as an invitation from Moscow to negotiate the whole spectrum of concerns about cooperation in Central Asia, but those talks will have to take place with Russia,” says Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, a leading foreign policy journal.
“Russia is positioning itself as the boss in this region once more.”
If Bakiyev’s decree is ratified by the Kyrgyz parliament, the US will have 180 days to vacate the installation.
In 2005, the US was forced to abandon a military base at Karshi-Khanabad, in Uzbekistan, after a Chinese- and Russian-led regional organization ordered it to leave.
Russian experts say Moscow wants to work with the US and NATO to defeat the Taliban, curb the rise of Islamic extremism in the former Soviet region, and fight drug trafficking.
But the same experts warn that the scramble for influence and oil by Western powers in Central Asia, as the Monitor wrote about in Tajikistan, threatens to undermine regional stability, and does not take account of Russian security concerns.
<< Go-getter: At a dreary Beijing job fair, Li Dengliang won me over | MainComments
2. Frank Stein | 02.04.09
We tend to look at this area through a fixed lens. Perhaps we should step back and reconsider.
1. Moscow has itself a new dictator and the loss of this nation to despotism is of far greater importance than Afghanistan. Bolstering the dictator’s legitimacy by dealing with him on these or any issue we are not compelled too is the wrong direction. We should be excluding him when the invitation list is ours to make, ignoring him whenever we are thrown together, and dealing with him only as a last resort.
2. Our goals in Afghanistan must take note that Bush failed to get the job done and the locals in all the “stans” have grown tired of our presence. It may well be time to leave, keeping in mind that people in this region will fight on forever.
3. The purpose of our Afghanistan push was to keep America safe from attack. There are other ways to do this. When Truman used the bomb it was because enormous numbers of American soldiers would be lost in an invasion of Japan because that people had been taught we were torturers and madmen they must fight to the death. It is time to consider whether radical Islam is doing the same and that our response to any future attacks should be defined in Truman-like terms for all to know.
4. Jonathan Pelphrey | 02.04.09
The comment left by Frank Stein is poorly conceived at best and dangerous at worst. There is so much wrong with your thinking, I don’t even know where to begin. But to even suggest that a nuclear attack on Afghanistan is justifiable because a) it would make America safer and b) the people of Afghanistan are brainwashed suicidal maniacs???? That’s just plain ignorant.
5. Andrew | 02.04.09
Everyone under 35 knows that drug prohibition makes a lasting victory in Afghanistan impossible. I guess nobody cares about Colombia either. But talking about winning Afghanistan without talking about the War on Drugs is called being in denial of the basic facts.
If those countries are far enough away to ignore the issue, we are about to have a new Afghanistan right next door. Mexico is coming apart at the seams. Thousands of US citizens have been kidnapped and top level government officials have been blown up. Their army is completely outgunned by drug money and they are powerless as their soldiers are beheaded and subjected to torture and god know’s what. Soon, the American South West will be as dangerous as the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region.
A very strong majority of younger people know that drug prohibition has to end and be replaced with a sensibly regulated market. But we can no longer afford to wait for the people who grew up on Hearst propaganda to die. If the foreign policy concerns haven’t convinced you, know also that prohibition is wildly economically destructive as well, most especially to people who never even use any of the illegal drugs. Any loss from actual drug use can easily be mitigated through taxation of legal markets. Drug prohibition has killed more Americans than the Iraq war. Hundreds of thousands are in jail for nothing more than possession. Many times more African Americans have been jailed for prohibition than Jim Crow ever accomplished.
There is a sense of cynical hopelessness about reform in this essential area, but the truth is, against mass consciousness the powers that be have no other option than to abandon their most lucrative form of corruption. Be a part of a better future, speak out against the War on Drugs. In the grand scheme of things, we are already inches from victory, mass consciousness is unstoppable.
The only chance for peace and security in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Mexico, comes with a half trillion to one trillion in economic stimulus for the entire world. NO MORE WAR ON DRUGS.
6. James | 02.04.09
Easy. Georgians ARE asking for a US mil. bases right? So why not build them there? US gets bases Georgia much more security.
7. Sergey | 02.04.09
i think americans should be thankful that Russia doesn’t train taliban soldiers or supply them with the latest weapons just like americans did when soviets were there.
8. Dale | 02.04.09
James needs to take a geography course. Å US base in Georgia would not help the situation in Afghanistan at all, as aside from being a bit farther away, any flights from there could only directly reach Afghanistan by flying over Iran, which country I suspect would not allow it. As for Frank, I guess you could go out of your way to ignore Russia, as long as you do not mind the consequences, both long and short term. One consequence would be the loss of any access to the International Space Station, as with the retirement (ill-advised in my opinion) of the Space Shuttle, Russia will control all access until at least 2015 if not longer. Russia also has demonstrated in unmistakable manner that they can put the screws on Europe by shutting off shipments of natural gas any time they wish. If we quit talking to Russia unless forced too, the Russians will make very certain that we are forced to. Central Asia is in Russia’s sphere of influence whether we like it or not. The mistake that Bush made, and Obama is reinforcing is staying in Afghanistan to begin with. The one consistent pattern in Afghan history is that any outside intruders will be resisted without respite until they leave.
9. J.B. Schag | 02.04.09
Military aggression in Afghanistan is completely unnecessary. Technology is available to create an outreach infrastructure integrated with regional inventory to map out pathways for solutions implementation by third party operators and suppliers including the local population and international partners.
Mass-scale high bandwidth telecommunications regardless of terrain, telemedicine, eLearning, economic and political stabilization through egalitarian dissemination of information promoting mass scale personal empowerment to alleviate poverty, power generation in remote areas and network based food and clean water production can all be immediately deployed to offer peaceful alternatives to military conflict. This is not a far off dream, my client has already developed and partially implemented these solutions so I’ve seen it for myself and know that it can be deployed to other countries as well.
Aggression only appears to be the sole available choice. It is not. It is an illusion. The technology is here. The only question is whether we have the courage to deploy it and win with peace.
10. David in Bishkek | 02.04.09
Fred,
Manas is hardly “sprawling.” And the base is not home to “scores” of fighter aircraft. In fact, it is home to no fighter aircraft at all.
12. Randy | 02.05.09
Consider this news in light of the also recent announcement of a new military alliance of former Soviet states. I have always maintained that communism in Russia (Soviet Union) has only stumbled, it has not fallen. I believe we are seeing more of the rebirth pangs of this ominous entity.
13. Chris | 02.05.09
@Randy,
What does communism have to do with Russia’s resurgence??? granted, Russia lately is using all the tools at its disposal and being very aggressive in countering U.S. influence both in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, but this has to do more with Russian nationalism and imperialism than to communism. communism was a failed ideology which the current russian government sees as such. If all you worry about is the comeback of communism in Russia then you can rest easy at night, because it is dead and done for sure.
14. Olga | 02.06.09
Just 2 points.
USA should be more careful with it’ s promises. They promised really poor Kirquizia so much in the beginning that they could never do it at the end. And now that Kirgyizia is even poorer than it was in the past, is there any understanding of that? No way.
On the other hand, what Putin got in return for his one-sided support for America? Were there any steps to show that they understand his efforts?
No wonder he got hurt.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. GB | 02.04.09
Time to work your magic, Obama.