American eyes on oil rich Central Asia

SCO vs GUAM
In fact, the show had already begun and made considerable progress. As a counter-measure to meet the Shanghai-based central Asian alliance (SCO), America had also formed a regional organisation, named, GUAM, which includes Georgia, Ukraine (in both of which pro-US presidents had been elected recently by defeating pro-Russia candidates), Uzbekistan, Azarbizan and Moldova. Besides, America had already established military bases in these countries, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks to strengthen the US-led war in Afghanistan. America had built military and air bases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan during the war on terror in Afghanistan. Although Russia had not opposed the establishment of such military and air bases by America, it had recently struck a deal with Tajikistan in 2004, where five thousand Russian forces are based. In the same year, Russia had obtained a military base in Kyrghystan where America also enjoys an air base. So the race for outwitting each other is proceeding in full swing. Meanwhile, Uzbek President is reported to have asked America to close down bases in his country within two months. A real body-blow for America.

Things moving against America?
Meanwhile, the wheel seems to have started moving in reverse gear for America, as the Sino-Russia led alliance had, in a recent summit declaration, asked America to set a date for their withdrawal from Afghanistan as well as from the two SCO member states, namely, Uzbekistan and Kyrghystan. Moreover, the leaders at the Summit had also vowed "to step up security cooperation" among its member countries and had accused unnamed (guess who) "out side forces" of trying to "destabilise" central Asia.

The pointed reference to "outside forces" trying to foment troubles must be in the context of recent uprisings in both Uzbekistan and Kyrghystan, which had been suppressed ruthlessly by their autocratic rulers.

It also shows which way America is working to strengthen its position there. The new president-elect of Kyrghystan, in his first press conference, following his land-slide victory in the recent election, had expressed his intention to review the question of withdrawal of US forces from his country, following the SCO Summit declaration.

Russia is more concerned about the US military presence in the area, particularly when the Taliban regime had been ousted from power in Afghanistan long ago and there is a marked fall in regular fighting there, because it has a historical attachment with both Uzbekistan and Kyrghystan, as members of the former Soviet Union. Although Russia is considered as a mere shadow of former Soviet Union, still it considers the two Republics as part of its 'sphere of influence.'

Moreover, Kremlin is increasingly concerned about America's subtle move to encourage pro-US elements to overthrow the present pro-Russian leadership, as they had already successfully done in Georgia and Ukraine, spending millions of dollars in the name of teaching local people democratic reforms and human rights.

China's worry
China, on the other hand, is highly sensitive to and apprehensive of continued military presence of America in Central Asia and at the same time America's short and long-term progammes to boost India to become a major power in the 21st century," -- certainly as a powerful road-block to Asia's rising giant China. The US motive was vividly revealed in the recent Indo-US Defence Agreement, signed in Washington, in June last, with a particular provision for joint Indo-US weapons production and cooperation on missile defence. The recent visit of Indian PM Manmohan Singh to Washington and his talks with President Bush had brought the world's two largest democracies further closer, of course, to serve a common cause. China must be taking it as a great challenge to its growing influence in the region.

This raises another basic question about US maneuvering in this region: What had really prompted Bush Administration to go ahead with its most ambitions National Missile Development (NMD) programme, at a cost of some 60 billion dollars, for which Bush, in his first year of Presidency, withdrew from the UN-sponsored Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty of 1972, on the childish plea that the 1972 treaty had hampered America's defence missile programme. It may be mentioned here that the programme was initiated by president Clinton but was dropped by him in face of increasing criticism against it by China and Russia. But it now seems that where Clinton feared to tread, Bush had rushed in!

America is already armed with nuclear weapons to the teeth, so to say. Then why this new adventure for national defence missile programme? Against which nuclear power, America is going to use these new anti-ballistic missiles, costing US tax-payers 60 billion dollars? Moreover, this new missile production programme has recently become a part of Indo-US defence pact. Certainly not against minnows like Iran or North Korea, or Syria, or even Russia. Who else then?

A signal for EU also?
But this missile threat is directed not only against the Asian giant China, or any other intransigent country, like North Korea. It has a strong signal for a 'third party' that is waiting in the aisle. While the two 'camps', one led by America and the other by China and Russia, are playing hide and seek in over-stepping the other to gain extra-mileage in exploiting central Asian oil resources, the third party, rather in a low profile, is peeping through the key-hole to see the progress of the game and perhaps make its emergence at the right time to play its role in sharing the oil wealth. And the third party is no other than the European Union (EU), which is not just sitting idle on the fence looking the other way. It is quite clear from the statement issued by the EU on the recent crackdown on the uprising in Uzbekistan that left hundreds of citizens dead. America, which preaches democratic rights of the people, and Russia, both seem to be going soft with the autocratic ruler of Uzbekistan. On the other hand, EU had demanded an 'international and independent' probe in the iron-hand army action against the agitating Uzbeks. It may be recalled that EU had earlier, in 1995, revealed its oil exploration plan in Central Asia under which the EU Commission would open a potential fuel transport from Azerbaijan, Kyrghystan, and Turkmenistan to Europe.

Conclusion
Only time will show how things move and how China, Russia and EU react to America's new politics -- military adventure in Central Asia. And if America goes berserk in Central Asia, neither China, nor Russia, nor even EU can resist the mighty runner. Whatever name you call Bush, he would continue to spread his 'military jurisdiction' wherever and whenever necessary. He had done it successfully in Iraq. He will understandably be looking for new 'green pastures' in Central Asia, if necessary, by creating new 'grounds', although an expert on Central Asia at the Carnegic Endowment, had recently warned that America 'is losing ground' in Central Asia. So what? The show must go on.

AMM Shahabuddin is a retired UN official.