Previous part 
It is customary to assume that since the USSR collapse, Russia, China, and the USA have been the main participants in the Great Game in Central Asia. The 'B' league consists of the European Union (in particular, Britain, Germany, and France), Turkey, and Iran. If viewed more closely, this second category may also include Japan. The latter does not publicize its participation in regional politics. To insure its interests, Tokyo uses such structures that do not usually attract particular attention, like secret services, private companies, and research institutes. The Japanese activity in Central Asia is designed for a long-term perspective. It still does not have any evident impact upon the situation in the region.
The same thing cannot be said about another country, whose participation in regional politics is at first sight absolutely invisible. Nonetheless, if the leaders of a certain State do not make highlighted declarations about Central Asia, the military servicemen do not loom up among its Capitals, and the embassies do not organize revolutions, it still does not mean that this region is of no interest to that State. It only means that this State uses its own different methods. For a Western observer these methods may sometimes seem uncommon, therefore, they usually escape his notice. This is the way the Japanese behave, and… the Saudis as well. But, contrary to Tokyo, Riyadh has played quite an important role in the post-Soviet history of Central Asia…
Backstage Influence
| |
|
 |
|
President George Bush and Saudi Arabia Ambassador to the USA,
Bandar Bin Sultan |
|
Relevant sources in one of the Middle-Eastern capitals claim that a decisive role in the discrediting of the Uzbek regime in the eyes of the American administration was played by the son of the Saudi Minister of Defense and Civil Aviation. The 35-year-old Prince Bandar Bin Sultan headed the embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington in 1983. Two years later he was assigned the status of a minister. Bin Sultan served as the ambassador until the summer of 2005.
For most of this period, the offspring of the Monarchial dynasty was almost not at all engaged in the affairs of the embassy. He was, however, considered an irreplaceable participant of backstage intrigues, clandestine negotiations, and billion-dollar deals, all of them having to do with US interests in the Middle East. Years of such experience provided the Saudi Ambassador with broad links within the American political and financial establishment among high-ranking officials in the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA. This process was favored by the fact that his father had a great influence over relations between the two countries. Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz al Saud had an exclusive right to approve or to disapprove any deal with the American military industry and the aviation construction industry (like Boeing, being tied to Riyadh by billion-dollar contracts). Moreover, the Ambassador's father was one of the leading figures in the ruling dynasty - those who decided on the extent of military cooperation with the United States.
Not without the help of his powerful relative, Bandar Bin Sultan turned into almost the most influential foreigner in the USA. One indication of his capacities is the fact that in 1990-91 he was the one who practically pushed President Bush towards the decision to start the military campaign against Iraq.
This time Bin Sultan acted in the same way as in many previous cases. Since the end of 2001, during meetings with the officials and private companies' representatives, he began gradually touching the issue of the American-
| |
|
 |
|
| Saudi Arabia Defense Minister Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz al Saud |
|
Uzbek relations. The Saudi Ambassador put a particular emphasis on the human rights issue in Uzbekistan, and in particular the issue of "religious Muslims' persecution" in this country. According to one of his interlocutors in that period, Riyadh's envoy claimed that the close ties with Tashkent do no less harm to Washington's Middle Eastern interests, than its support of Tel-Aviv.
Representatives of several big American companies, particularly in the sphere of the energy and military industries , usually helped Bandar Bin Sultan in different ways. From the moment of its coming on to the stage, the American-Uzbek alliance was actually doomed. We do not have documentary evidence for that, but according to informed sources in the Middle East, one of the largest lobbying groups – U.S.A.-Engage – was particularly active in this connection. It was founded in 1992, uniting 640 giants of the American economy (like Boeing, AT&T, Apple), a tenth of the leading banks, as well as associations of industrialists and farmers. The new union aimed at influencing Washington's foreign policy in accordance with US economic interests. The most prominent and influential members of U.S.A.-Engage were among the main sponsors of the Republican, and Democratic parties. They also permanently work in the Congress, and have a great influence over the American mass media (partly because of advertising). Moreover, many structures inside U.S.A-Engage have their own interests in the Middle East. An important part of them have close ties with ruling and financial circles in Saudi Arabia.
The September 11 events; the operation in Afghanistan, and to a greater extent – Iraq, as well as American support of Israel, favored the increase of the antagonism between the USA and the Arab world. Certain powers in U.S.A.-Engage lost, but many others won. Escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, military action against the Talibs and the Iraqi regime guaranteed large-scale orders to the American military industry. Iraq reconstruction gave giant benefits to oil and construction companies in the USA. The alliance with Uzbekistan, on the contrary, did not give any benefit to any of the big players in the American economy. On the other hand, they received an opportunity to find a good pretext for "going towards" the Arabian partners, and for using their influence to terminate the cooperation with Tashkent. So much the more, the same goal was being attained by the officials in the State Department.
Triple Strike
Almost immediately after the visit of Islam Karimov to the USA in March 2002, due to the joint efforts of the Saudi establishment, the American diplomats, and various lobby groups, the atmosphere in Washington began to vary away from the benefit of Tashkent. At the end of the same year the budgetary committee of the Congress decided that the interests of American taxpayers do not allow the continuation of such generous financial aid to Uzbekistan. In 2002, this help, within the framework of various programs, reached the sum of $193 million (for example, in the same year, another strategic ally of the USA – tiny Israel - received $2.22 billion). Originally, reduction of the help to Uzbekistan was explained only by practical reasons. But the reductions in 2004 had purely political grounds: "for violation of human rights."
At that time the Pentagon tried to resist the blunt attacks of Congress and the White House against its major partner in Central Asia. In February 2004, the American Minister of Defense, during his visit to Uzbekistan, called this republic "the key partner" in the antiterrorist coalition. To compensate for the reduction in civil aid by $18 million in July 2004, the Pentagon allocated an additional $21 million to Uzbekistan. However, the military could not essentially change the situation any more. In the course of the next months, three factors accelerated the gap between Washington and Tashkent.
The situation in Iraq:
| |
|
| |
 |
| |
Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld,
and Islam Karimov |
The scandals around the American army's actions in Iraq, and the growing losses of personnel weakened the Pentagon's positions even more.
New head of the State Department: Condoleeza Rice came to the State Department in November 2004, after heading the National Security Council. She is a vigorous and ambitious politician, unshakably believing in the universality of American values. For most of her life she has dealt with the issue of the former Soviet republics. Her conception of Central Asia was generated not only due to her academic practice and work in public service, but also by her membership on the Board of Directors of Chevron Corporation. Among foreign companies, Chevron is considered to be one of the most active in the regional power market, due to several large projects in Kazakhstan. By the way, it is included in the list of the main American partners of the Saudi government in the oil sphere.
For the State Department top officials, the change of director meant restoration of the positions that gave way after the September 11 events. Their new chief was sure that she understood the security issues as well as the military. And as for Central Asia, she thought she knew the situation even better, and, at any rate, it is not for the generals to decide who fits the role of a strategic ally of the USA, and who doesn't. Rice is convinced: the generals should follow the instructions of the political leadership, instead of imposing their will.
The views of the new Secretary of State have played one of the decisive roles in breaking up American-Uzbek allied relations.
The Andijan riots: In May 2005, in the eastern Uzbek city of Andijan, anti-governmental riots sparked. Tashkent's tough reaction served as the trigger of a large-scale campaign against Karimov in the West. The American mass media almost unanimously pounced upon the Uzbek regime. Rice subjected official Tashkent to sharp criticism. The USA froze financial aid to Uzbekistan. Later on, the Congress lobbied for the idea of opening a criminal case against Karimov, and of the introduction of anti-Uzbek sanctions. In October, the Secretary of State refused in a pointed manner to visit Tashkent during her tour across Central Asia.
During the first months after the Andijan riots, the Pentagon tried to soften the acuteness of the crisis, which was gaining strength. In July, Donald Rumsfeld even declared a certain warming in mutual relations, and a US readiness to consider the renewal of economic assistance to Uzbekistan. Soon it became clear that the statements of the US Minister of Defense were far from reality. The American diplomats took their revenge over the military. The Pentagon lost its influence over the Central-Asian policy of the White House. Less than three years since its beginning, the strategic union of Washington and Tashkent lost its sense.
Read in the next part: The USA Conceded to the Asian Threats
Main Page | News Page | 007 News | Print
|
