McNair Paper Number 47 Chapter 3, January 1996
3.
MODALITIES OF THE
NEW GREAT GAME
THE MIDDLE EAST
Since the dismantlement of the Soviet Union, a number of Middle Eastern actors have escalated their activities in Central Asia. This activism may be viewed from two perspectives. On a more mundane and nonstrategic level it may be seen as an endeavor on the part of a number of Middle Eastern actors--such as Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan--to establish diplomatic ties and look for trade opportunities. Seen as such, the activities of these countries appear to be quite benign. But from a strategic perspective, an entirely different picture of their activism emerges. Since Iran's Islamic revolution of 1978-1979, Saudi Arabia and Iran have initiated a strategic competition for enhanced influence in, or even domination of, the Persian Gulf and the contiguous areas. As the military might of Iran was used up by the fury of the Islamic revolution, Saudi Arabia saw an opening that it could not help but exploit for its own advantage. It responded to Iranian threats to regional stability by creating the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), an organization that turned out to be a vehicle for establishing Saudi military dominance of the Arabian Peninsula. While Iran was busy fighting a protracted war with Iraq between 1980 and 1988, Saudi Arabia was building its own military infrastructure.
The Nixon administration's policy of the 1970s of relying on a regional actor to promote or safeguard U.S. interests has never been abandoned by Washington. The focus was on Iran until the Islamic revolution. Since 1980, this focus has shifted to Saudi Arabia. Washington's carte blanche--that the Nixon administration had offered to the Shah of Iran to purchase American weaponry after 1970--was now extended to the Saudi monarchy. The presence of
large oil reserves made Saudi Arabia vital to the West, and by the 1970s, thanks to OPEC's maneuvering of oil prices, the Gulf states acquired enormous financial capabilities and considerable political clout.
The regional politics of the Persian Gulf also worked in favor of the Saudis after 1980. The Islamic revolution of Iran and threats of its potential exportability to the neighboring states necessitated strengthening of the Saudi security apparatus. The Iran-Iraq war was perceived by the United States and the peninsular Arab countries (except Yemen) as a serious enough reason to concentrate on strengthening the military capability of the Gulf sheikhdoms. The Persian Gulf War of 1991 both proved and disproved these concerns. It proved the concern of the Arab states in the sense that this war occurred within less than 3 years of the cessation of the Iran-Iraq war. It disproved the capabilities of the GCC, because when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, that organization ceased to exist. But for Riyadh and Washington, this development did not serve as an obstacle in the way of continued development of Saudi military power.
For Iran, the growing Saudi military capabilities are a source of friction and concern. Given the small population of Saudi Arabia, and considering the fact that it will be a long time before Saudi forces will be able to develop an effective use of American weaponry, Iran does not perceive that kingdom as a real military challenge to its own ambitions to dominate the Gulf and its contiguous areas. These perceptions notwithstanding, Iran cannot afford to sit on its laurels. After all, it fought a bloody war with Iraq in which it was attacked by chemical weapons, and its cities absorbed barrages of missiles from Iraq. Iran is not about to take a chance and not rebuild its own military power, so the arms race between Tehran and Riyadh is on--but this is only a side show. The real game is about which country will emerge as a dominant actor. (For now, Iraq is out of the picture as a military threat.) The emergence of Central Asian Muslim states only widens the geographic area of strategic competition between these two Persian Gulf nations.
The Iranian and Saudi presence in Central Asia is, inter alia, also aimed at enhancing their political influence. The Islamic variable remains as one more instrument to exercise this influence. These two states have different stakes in the region, and both have
certain advantages they can overplay, but each encounters certain disadvantages the other party may be able to exploit.
Iran and Central Asia
Contiguous to two Central Asian republics--Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan--and closer to the other republics than Saudi Arabia, Iran has high stakes in the region. It can look actively for a variety of trade agreements with these republics and has made quite a bit of progress in this regard. It also has a powerful cultural affinity with Azerbaijan, because a substantial portion of the population in that country is of the Shiite faith. Similarly, the ethnic and linguistic commonality between Iran and Tajikistan can also become a powerful basis for cooperation, as the Tajiks are culturally Iranian rather than Turkic and speak an eastern dialect of Farsi (Persian).(Note 1) To the extent that Iran can continue to escalate the pace of its diplomatic and trade activities, its closeness to Muslim Central Asia is advantageous. However, given the nature of irredentist tendencies on the part of Azerbaijan, this propinquity could become disadvantageous. Similarly, a potential escalation of political instability in Turkmenistan may also turn out to be a source of grave concern for Iran, as the continuation of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict already has.
Aside from the geographic proximity, the second advantage that Iran enjoys in Central Asia is its experiment with an Islamic government. It is true that a number of heads of Central Asian states have expressed their antipathy to the Iranian model, but one should not regard this reality to be permanent. Most heads of these countries are former Communists and as such they might feel more comfortable with secularism. What is significant is the popular response to the notion of Islamic government in the future. In the aftermath of the breakup of the former Soviet Union, the Muslim Central Asian peoples are in the process of discovering two realities that had eluded them for a long time: their independence, and their ability to practice Islam without any fear of repression from the state. This notion of independence also means that a number of political parties, especially the Islamist parties, are also likely to gain bases of operation in those polities. This emerging political pluralism will enable them to look at Islam, along with other systems, as a political arrangement. At that time, the utility of the Iranian model is also likely to be examined. This is where the Shiite nature of the Iranian model might turn out to be to its disadvantage, but such a disadvantage may not affect the very principle of incorporation of Islamic government. At that point, the utility of the Saudi or the Pakistani model may also be examined.(Note 2)
The disadvantages faced by Iran in Central Asia are economic and religious. As a country whose economy has experienced devastations stemming from the revolutionary turmoil since 1978, and from the war against Iraq between 1980 and 1988, Iran's economic capabilities are quite limited. Even though a substantial portion of its revenues (90 percent or so) come from oil, Iran has been operating in an environment of depressed oil prices since the early 1980s. While its oil income is down, its expenditures have skyrocketed. It is spending enormous amounts of money rebuilding its economy. In addition, Iran has also adopted an ambitious program of military buildup. Given these major outlets for huge capital expenditures, Tehran can offer few monetary enticements for the Central Asian states, whose economies are badly in need of capital investments. What Iran can do--and it has been active along these lines--is to supply in-kind assistance, such as establishing air and railway linkages, signing joint exploration and production ventures, etc.(Note 3) It cannot, however, offer these countries generous cash subsidies to start a number of economic projects.
The religious variable may also turn out to be a disadvantage for Iran in Central Asia. As a Shiite Muslim state, it cannot become an effective force in that area, where, save for Azerbaijan, the predominant portion of the Muslim population belongs to the Sunni sect. Lest one overstate this point, it is important to note that Iran has the potential to overcome this disadvantage by remaining a proponent of an Islamic government. The fact that Iran has implemented such a system in the aftermath of a revolutionary change may be viewed as a source of illustration and inspiration for the Central Asian states, whose independence became a reality only as a result of another revolutionary change, the dismantlement of the Soviet Union.
Despite reports of Iranian involvement in the growing violent activism of the Islamist forces in North Africa, Tehran has maintained the scope of its activities in the Central Asian countries along the conventional lines of seeking economic and trade ventures. In this regard, the government of President Ali Hashemi Rafsanjani scored a major victory when Azerbaijan gave Iran a $7.4 billion share (or 20 percent of the total) of its international oil consortium. Iran also signed an agreement with Turkmenistan to lay pipelines to carry Turkmeni gas to Europe through Iran. Kazakhstan and Iran signed an agreement for the transfer of 2 million tons of crude oil from Kazakhstan through the Caspian Sea to Iran. Tehran worked out a variety of agreements with a number of Central Asian countries, including weekly flights to Iran, a number of border crossings, and building bridges and repairing roads.(Note 4)
As an Islamic republic, Iran continues to emphasize the pan-Islamic aspects of its foreign policy through Central Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. It is worth emphasizing that the Iranian focus on pan-Islamism is a development on which a number of Arab governments--e.g., Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco--are keeping a wary eye. But at the popular level, this pan-Islamism has the potential to attract a considerable amount of sympathy, indeed even euphoria, in almost all Muslim countries. Similarly, at the popular level, pan-Islamism in Central Asia is bound to gather ample sympathy and momentum as the dust from the breakup of the former Soviet Union settles within the next few years.
Saudi Arabia and Central Asia
Saudi Arabia has a considerable advantage over Iran in Central Asia, especially in economics and religion. As the largest producer of oil, it can afford to make loans and grants to a number of these countries, and the Saudis have already invested $4 billion in that area. Riyadh has been interested, along with Iran and Turkey, in investing in the oil industry in Turkmenistan, which has also received $10 billion in credit from Saudi Arabia.(Note 5)
There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia has been concerned about the escalated pace of Iranian activism in Central Asia. For instance, the diplomatic trip of Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal Al-Saud during February 1992 to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan was clearly aimed at not only underscoring a high degree of Saudi interest in the region but also at expressing its anxiety over the formulation of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO). Obviously, the Saudis did not want to be left out. Riyadh has also been channeling large sums of money through joint ventures in a number of Central Asian countries. The Al-Baraka-Kazakhstan Bank is one such example.
As the birthplace of Islam, Saudi Arabia holds a special place in the hearts of the Muslims of Central Asia; since a majority of Central Asian Muslims are of the Sunni faith, Saudi Arabia has a tremendous advantage in offering Islamic education to the Central Asian Muslims. The Saudi monarchy has been quite active in furnishing free Hadj to pilgrims from different Central Asian countries, in supplying millions of copies of the Quran, and in funding thousands of new religious schools and mosques. On these matters, Tehran has no choice but to take a second place.(Note 6) The Saudi Government invited Central Asian states to attend the Jeddah-based Islamic Conference Organization (ICO) which led to full membership in the organization for Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. Kazakhstan has attended as an observer. Members are entitled to obtain funds from the Islamic Development Bank.
Besides its distance from Central Asia, Riyadh's other major drawback is that Saudi Islam is conservative. It is very much oriented toward stability and status quo, while Iranian Islam is highly politicized, proactive, and anti-status quo. More important, Iranian Islam, or at least its public rhetoric, is aimed at creating a new balance of power in the region, from the Persian Gulf to Central Asia. It has unsuccessfully tried to create a new balance of power in the Persian Gulf, where the predilections of oil sheikhdoms have been overwhelmingly conservative, pro-Western, and for maintenance of the status quo. The politics of Central Asia, because political instability has been the sine qua non of their history, may be receptive to suggestions for the creation of new power centers (or a new balance of power), especially in the name of Islam. In this sense, Iran may have a considerable advantage over Saudi Arabia. This aspect of the new great game might be only in its initial phase.
In the post-Soviet era, as leaders and the foreign policy elites in Moscow examine the realities of power in the international arena, the significance of the "near abroad" region becomes abundantly clear to them.
The former Eastern European satellite states are scrambling to become a part of Western economic and security systems. Western Europe and the United States have maintained their strong strategic ties emanating from their membership in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and NATO. In fact, the latter has become so important that it has had to find a new mechanism--"partnership for peace" (PFP)--to accommodate the growing desire of the former Warsaw Pact nations to join. Even Russia came to the conclusion that it cannot afford to be left behind and decided to become one of the signatories of the PFP.(Note 7) For their security concerns, these countries continue to assign a great deal of importance to Washington. Even the Middle East has become a region where American prestige--stemming from the 1991 Gulf War--remains high. The snail-paced progress in the Palestinian-Israeli peace has taken the steam out of one of the most contentious issues of the Middle East. Consequently, the conventional hardline states--Syria, Iraq, and Libya--lost their erstwhile significance as the "spoilers" of a potential peace process. The demise of the Soviet Union has also eliminated the major source of military support and weapons supply for them; Iraq has been eliminated as a major military actor as a result of its crushing defeat in the Gulf War of 1991.
About the only region that is left in which Russia can build its strategic significance as a great power is its immediate neighborhood, the near abroad. The foreign policy elites in Moscow know full well that:
The security of their country is inextricably linked with political developments in the near abroad
In order to emerge as a great power, Russia must concentrate on building close ties with these states
Moscow must focus on sustaining the extant economic ties with the former members of the USSR and creating new ones (of course, it is no secret that an important objective underlying these economic relationships is to sustain the dependency of these countries on Russia)
Russia must insist that the former Soviet states should not only retain but strengthen security arrangements with Moscow. It is also well-known that the main purpose of these arrangements is to make sure that these states do not develop security relations with Muslim states of the Middle East, or with other states of the far abroad.(Note 8) Appendix 2 shows an overview of the thinking of the Russian foreign policy elites regarding the dynamics of their country's strategic ties with its neighbors.
Since the emergence of Russia as heir to the Soviet Union, its own perspectives regarding the near abroad have gone through two phases. During the first year of the creation of the CIS, Russia was too busy with its domestic turbulence emanating from the disappearance of the Soviet Union and too preoccupied with obtaining massive economic assistance from the West to focus on Muslim Central Asia. Besides, it was quite natural to think that any stable patterns of foreign policy were going to take some time before they gelled. It was expected before too long that Russia was bound to act as a great power.(Note 9) Since early 1993, there has been a dramatic turnabout in Russia's relations with its neighboring states. Elaborating on this shift in Russia's foreign policy, Porter and Saivetz write that Russia "has employed a wide range of political, military, and economic pressures and inducements to reassert its influence throughout the Near Abroad." They note further that Russia's activities in this area are "rapidly becoming fulcrums of political leverage throughout the former Union."(Note 10)
There is a clear nostalgia in Russia about the former Soviet empire and about the status of that country as a superpower. Not even an Atlanticist is expected to be totally free from moments of remorse about the loss of international status for Russia in the post-Soviet days. Even if the Atlanticists were to raise themselves and truly pursue the pro-Western, democratic, and free market orientations, they would remain vulnerable to criticisms from Eurasianist and other groups that are advocating a neo-imperialistic policy for Russia.(Note 11)
Even if Russia's economic status improves, the ultranationalist groups are not likely to wither away or become irrelevant in the foreseeable future and are likely to remain politically active and potent for a number of reasons:
The strategic environment of the Muslim Central Asian countries is likely to remain vulnerable to the manipulation of Russia. The events of the recent past in Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Tajikistan have already resulted in Russia's intervention. It should be noted that Azerbaijan and Georgia were "avant-garde states" in their endeavors "to exit Moscow's sphere of influence," thus they became "the prime targets of a Russian 'object lesson' designed to teach other states how to stay in line."(Note 12) The price extracted from these countries was quite steep, and they were given little choice but to accept Russia's demand to join the CIS. In the case of Georgia, President Eduard Shevardnazde was also forced to sign a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, accept stationing of Russian troops in Georgia, and grant the use of three bases in his country. In return, Russia saved Shevardnazde's government from being defeated by the forces of the former dictator of Georgia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia.
In the coming years, the growing nationalism in Muslim Central Asian countries (with a varying percentage of Russian population, whose total number for that region is around 25 million) is likely to result in an increased migration of Russians to mother Russia. This reality, along with continued concern in Moscow about the plight of Russians still residing in the Central Asian countries, is going to serve as a catalyst for jingoistic and ultranationalistic rhetoric of the Eurasianist and neo-imperialist groups for assertive and imperialistic overtures of Russia toward its neighbors. This issue is likely to affect Kazakhstan in a most significant way, as Russians are reported to be between 38 and 40 percent of its population.
The growing influence of Islam is a variable that has always created acute paranoia among the Russian political elites. On this issue there appears to be a congruity of interests between Moscow and the present rulers of all Muslim countries of Central Asia. The authoritarian type of governments in all of these countries, except for Kyrgyzstan, does not allow for political dissent, especially when it comes from the Islamic groups. In its dealings with Islamic groups, even the record of President Akaev's government is not much different. Any challenge from these groups will be dubbed a challenge from "Islamic fundamentalism," a phrase well understood by Moscow. In fact, the Russian intervention in Tajikistan, which was endorsed by all the Muslim countries of Central Asia except Turkmenistan, was done under the pretext of uprooting the "fundamentalist" forces.
Russia will be concerned about the growing foreign policy activism from Iran, Turkey, and Pakistan. In the case of Iran and Pakistan, the concern is also related to the previously mentioned paranoia about Islam. In the case of Turkey, the Russian concern will be about the potential growth of pan-Turkism, which is also one of the historical Russian worries.
Resurgent Russian nationalism has vividly manifested itself in the oil, gas, and pipeline issues involving Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. As table 1 shows, these three countries have substantial gas and petroleum reserves. Oil industry analysts believe that, together with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan could form the world's third largest oil producing region, after Siberia and the Gulf. Rudyard Kipling is reported to have observed once that the fate of the great game in Central Asia would be won by the country that succeeded in building the largest network of railroads. In the contemporary version of this great game, oil and gas pipelines appear to have replaced the railway network in strategic significance. The issue of pipelines involving the states of the former Soviet Union, Turkey, and Iran has been marred by controversies over its routing, which, in turn, promises to determine the future modalities of the New Great Game. The first controversy, commonly referred to as the Caspian Sea development issue, involves the pipeline routes to carry oil from Azerbaijan to the West. The second one concerns pipelines to carry oil from the Tengiz fields of Kazakhstan to the West. The pipeline routes to carry gas from Turkmenistan to the West constitute the third issue of controversy (figure 5).
Russia, the United States, Turkey, and Iran are promoting their respective agendas related to the pipeline routes. For Russia, the issues of energy and pipelines are inextricably linked to its determination to keep the economies of the Central Asian nations and Azerbaijan dependent on its own. In this sense, Moscow views the endeavors of these countries to establish joint ventures with Western entrepreneurs as a clear challenge, if not an outright threat, to its dominant position in that region. Consequently, Russia has used subtle threats and blatant policy positions to dissuade Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan from going too far in the pursuit of economic independence.
TABLE 1:Oil and gas reserves and production in the CIS (1991 data)
|
Kazakhstan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan TOTALS Russia
| Proved Reserves* 1.2 3.3 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 6.8 50.0
| Probable Reserve Additons* 4 12 3 2 1 1 23 99
|
NATURAL GAS STATUS
|
Azerbaijan Kazakhstan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan TOTALS Russia
|
Est. Proved Reserves* 19 15 189 88 1 1 313 1,437
|
Probable Reserve Additions* 19 35 175 80 2 2 313 1,269
|
Source: Extracted from Joseph P. Riva, Jr., Petroleum in the Muslim Republics of the Commonwealth of Independent States: More Oil for OPEC? (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, September 1, 1992) , CRS 6.
The Azerbaijan International Operating Company (AIOC), an 11-member consortium (British Petroleum and Ramco of the United Kingdom; Amoco, Unocal, McDermott, and Pennzoil of United States; Statoil of Norway; Turkish Petroleum; Russia's largest oil company, Lukoil; Delta, a private Saudi company; and the Azeri company, Socar, which has a 20 percent interest), is involved in developing three Azeri oil fields in phases. In the early phase, lasting through 1997, the production was to reach 80,000 barrels per day. The peak output of these fields was expected to reach about 700,000 bbls/ day.(Note 14)
The competition to win contracts to transport oil exports from the Caspian Sea developed into a contest that pitted Moscow against Washington. Russia was pressing for what may be termed the northern pipeline option, a route that was to take the Azeri oil through neighboring Chechnya to the main Russian Black Sea port of Novorissiysk. The Azeri crude would then be transferred to tankers, which would pass through the Bosphorus en route to the Mediterranean refineries. As an incentive to the AIOC, Moscow offered tariffs at least 20 percent lower than the ones offered by Georgia, and this discount offer was to be raised if the oil consortium were to use the Russian pipelines to export at least part of its crude during the later phase of production.
Turkey, on the other hand, promoted a proposal to pipe oil extracted during the early phase of production to the Georgian port of Supsa. From there, it would be taken to northern Turkish ports and sent by rail to markets in Central Anatolia. Washington supported this routing as a way of reducing the region's dependence on Russia and also to exclude potential Iranian participation in the Azeri consortium. In fact, U.S.-Turkish pressure led to the rescinding of an Azeri offer to give Iran 5 percent out of the Azeris' own 20 percent share of the consortium.(Note 15) The contest between Russia and Turkey over their respective pipeline options was so intense that at one point the Turkish Prime Minister, Mrs. Tansik Ciller, threatened that "not a drop of oil will pass through the Bosphorus if Turkey loses the contest to attract the early oil production from the Azeri oil project."(Note 16)
The AIOC finally came up with a compromise whereby 5 million tons per year of early oil would be split between a Russian pipeline and the Turkish-sponsored route that runs through Georgia. As a result of this compromise, Turkey was willing to allow a 2.5 million tons of oil destined for Russia to pass through the Bosphorus. This compromise was characterized as "a major victory for the Turkish-U.S. diplomacy."(Note 17)
Russian high-handedness on the energy issue was apparent when Moscow coerced Azerbaijan into granting its Lukeoil Company a 10 percent stake in the Azeri consortium.(Note 18) The most significant aspect of this announcement was that not only was it linked to the Russian mediation on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but Moscow was explicit in arguing that the development of the Caspian Sea oil resources must be based on the participation of all Caspian countries. Regarding the Russian attempts to link the oil issue with the Karabakh conflict, Azerbaijan sent an unmistakable signal by seeking and winning the support of Washington, Paris, London, and Ankara for the presence of peacekeeping forces from the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe over the Russian peacekeeping forces within its borders.
Russia also put pressure on Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to agree to swap their debts for equity in those republics' oil and gas firms. Kazakhstan's vast Tengiz oil field could be producing 700,000 million barrels per day at its peak in 2010. Moscow blocked the exports of Kazakh oil starting in May 1994, thus depriving that country of hard currency and Western contacts. By August of that year, Kazakhstan relented by granting the Russian oil company Rosneft 1 million tons of oil as transit fees. At the same time, Alma Alta also kept intact its Western option by signing an agreement with Chevron to develop the Tengiz oil field, while another contract was signed with Bechtel of the United States to build a pipeline from Tengiz to Novorossiiysk, linking with the existing facility from Baku, Azerbaijan, to Grozny, Russia.
Turkmenistan was handled in a similar high-handed fashion by Moscow. Russia invited itself to the oil and gas consortium of Turkmenistan and participated in negotiations with Iran and Turkey for a pipeline deal to transport oil and gas to Europe. In addition, Russia purchased gas from Turkmenistan at a low price and resold it to Turkey with a markup of 300 percent. In an attempt to maintain other energy trade options, Turkmenistan signed a cooperation agreement with Iran to lay a pipeline to carry Turkman gas to Europe through Iran. Yet another agreement was signed between Iran and Kazakhstan for the transfer of 2 million tons of crude oil from Kazakhstan through the Caspian Sea to Iran. The two countries were also discussing a potential oil pipeline deal.
Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan have encountered a tremendous disadvantage emanating from their economic backwardness and dependency on Moscow. More important, they also suffered because Washington was pressing its own agenda, especially on Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, of excluding Iran from the gas and oil deals.
What are America's interests in countries that were once a part of the former Soviet Union? Aside from helping Moscow make steady progress toward democracy and toward creating a free market economy, the foremost American concern is to create political conditions for the transfer of nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Belarus, and Khazakshtan to Russia. Of these, the transfer of nuclear weapons from Belarus is complete. As previously noted, with the signing of the NPT by both Ukraine and Kazakhstan, with the strategic deal involving the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine, and with the transfer of the weapon-grade uranium from Kazakhstan to the United States, this issue has largely been defused, at least for the time being.
The third American interest in the areas surrounding Russia and its neighbors is regional stability. On the surface, this is a reasonable concern, but what is problematic is that America's preoccupation with regional stability enables it to regard Russia as the primary (if not the sole) legitimate actor to determine the modality of this stability. Moreover, Washington does not want to question the tactics Moscow uses to bring it about. What is even more disconcerting is that Washington appears oblivious to the fact that, in its zeal to bring about regional stability in some of the former states of the Soviet Union, Moscow appears to be creating conditions that would end their status as independent countries. Describing Russia's perspective on the freedom of maneuverability that it has with the connivance of the West, Allen Lynch writes, "Russia cannot expect serious western opposition to the exercise of Russian political-military influence as long as it remains confined to the CIS and, possibly, the Baltic States as well."(Note 19)
In his 1994 State of the Union message, President Clinton observed, "We will seek to cooperate with Russia to solve regional problems, while insisting that if Russian troops operate in neighboring states, they do so only when those states agree to their presence, and in strict accordance with international standards." Three problems exist with this position:
There is clearly no Western or United Nations scrutiny of how such an agreement will be brought about. In the case of Azerbaijan and Georgia, Russia was reportedly involved in creating impossible security conditions in their respective conflicts. Then, Moscow made its help a condition for these states to join the CIS and required the stationing of Russian forces within their borders. In the case of Tajikistan, the neighboring states' purported concerns about the civil war were clearly aimed at propping up the neo-Communist forces in that country. This Russian behavior was clearly not what Clinton meant when he alluded to "strict accord with international relations."
This position is likely to accept Russia's interpretations of threats to regional security and to forestall any genuine attempts within Muslim Central Asian countries to bring about political changes.
Finally, allowing Russia a wide latitude in determining regional security would also enable Moscow to create conditions that would prolong the acute economic dependence of these countries on Russia, a reality that all of them are earnestly trying to end. An example of the wide latitude in Moscow's actions in the near abroad were the Russian attempts to link its troop withdrawals from the Baltic states to the resolution of what it described as a "violation of human rights" of the Russian-speaking population of those states. Clinton initially accepted this Russian position without scrutiny.
The carte blanche that Washington has given to Moscow in the realm of regional stability becomes a crucial source of legitimacy, at least in the view of Moscow, in its dealings with the Muslim states of Central Asia. There are no vital U.S. interests involving those countries; perhaps there are only secondary interests, as long as Kazakhstan remains a nonnuclear country.
There is also a congruity of interests between Moscow and Washington regarding Islam. "Islamic fundamentalism," though pejorative and imprecise in its meaning, is viewed as the next "enemy" by both sides. All the present rulers of the Central Asian countries concur with Moscow and Washington in their perception of Islam. This congruity of interests underscores the fact that the regional hegemon (Russia) should be allowed to use whatever means it feels are warranted to cope with the Islamic challenge. Moscow has already exploited this opportunity and has established bilateral military agreements with all the states of Central Asia.(Note 20) The collective security agreement signed in May 1992 in Tashkent by all the Central Asian states except Turkmenistan adds another layer of legitimacy for Moscow's intervention in any political turbulence within the borders of its signatories. As long as Moscow can crush the Islamic forces, the United States does not need to be involved in this exercise and thus does not face any potential deleterious spillover effects of brutalizing these forces in a region very important to the security concerns of Washington--the Muslim Middle East.
Moscow's intervention in the Tajik civil war was brought about as a result of the Tashkent collective security agreement and at the "invitation" of the Muslim states of Central Asia (save Turkmenistan), thus making it a "perfectly legitimate" action in the eyes of Washington. No one cares to recall that a few years ago--1979--the world was told that the Soviet Union was also "invited" into Afghanistan by the government of that country. Now a non-Communist Russia is fighting a potential enemy of Moscow, the existing governments of Central Asian countries, and Washington--"Islamic fundamentalists." Moscow will continue to intervene to safeguard the current governments, while the authoritarian rulers will also continue to crush all political dissent. Islam Karimov, that inveterate autocrat of Uzbekistan, has been quite instrumental in using the Russian card to prolong his own rule. This is a tradition that promises only to make the politics of Muslim Central Asia quite turbulent in the coming years.
How far will this emergence of a "cooperative condominium" between the United States and Russia go before they part company regarding Muslim Central Asia?(Note 21) In an imaginary (or unspoken) strategic hierarchy of states of that area, Washington would be more sensitive to the security issues of the Baltic states and Ukraine first, or perhaps even Georgia. The Muslim states would be at the very bottom of America's strategic concerns, unless there is a major conflict that would open up the weak seam that is keeping the Russian population a part of Kazakhstan. Alternatively, Washington might be jolted out of its Pollyanna attitude toward Moscow if the democratic forces were ousted and Russia adopted a pronounced authoritarian/imperial posture.
In summary, the modalities of the sphere of influence are increasingly determined by Moscow on the basis of a growing consensus within Russia that, as a great power, it must strengthen its hegemonic presence in the near abroad. Even if Russia were to emerge as a democratic nation, the hegemonic aspects of its foreign policy would likely be pursued much more vigorously in Muslim Central Asia than toward Ukraine or in the Baltic states, for these states enjoy cultural proximity and religious commonality with the West. At the same time, the Clinton administration's lackadaisical attitude toward Central Asia gives Moscow almost a free hand in that area.
A continuation of hegemonic foreign policy also means that Russia would do everything to ensure that the current rulers of the Central Asian countries stay in power. At the same time, as the polities of these societies become more mature, and politically and religiously more conscious, they are likely to experience an increased amount of cultural and religious activism and political pluralism, which are only going be suppressed by the authoritarian rulers. Such a scenario does not bode well for the political future of the states of Muslim Central Asia, especially if their economic lots are also left to the whims and fancies of the politicians in Moscow.
After the end of the Cold War, Turkey lost its significance as a country contiguous to the former Soviet Union. Even its attempt to become a member of the European Economic Community or Common Market (EEC) has been delayed because of pressure from Greece and because some Western European countries have serious misgivings about the Turkish human rights record and its treatment of the Kurdish minority. The dissolution of the Soviet Union, however, did give the Turks a new strategic relevance, and a new area--Muslim Central Asia--where they could exercise their influence. And because the United States, as the only remaining superpower, is concerned about the stability of the CIS, Ankara and Washington have found a new basis for strategic cooperation. One should also keep in mind that within the Turkish political arena, there appears to be a reexamination of some of the most "revered Ataturkist traditions--so valuable and critical to the national survival in an earlier era of Turkish history." Some of the variables are "isolationism" and "avoidance of Islamic and Pan-Turkic ideological interests."(Note 22) In Central Asia, Turkey has definitely replaced its isolationist tradition with a high pace of activism and involvement aimed at establishing cultural and trade ties. There is no hesitation on the part of political leaders in Ankara in admitting that Turkey must seek economic integration in the Central Asian and the Black Sea regions. On the issue of "avoidance of Islamic and pan-Turkic ideological interests," however, Turkey remains indecisive. In the 1990s, when it is so fashionable to look for the threat of "Islamic fundamentalism" in every corner of the Middle East and Central Asia, Turkey remains excessively cautious. Even pan-Turkism remains an issue of suspicion and concern in that part of the world, but the Turkish secular model is a variable that is viewed favorably by the United States.
From the perspective of the Bush and Clinton administrations, Turkey needs to play its ethnic card in that region. The Turkish "secular model"--which emphasizes separation of church and state--should be extended as a source of emulation and, most important, as a competing alternative to the Iranian Islamic model. Washington hopes that the acceptance of the Turkish model by the Central Asian states would also enable them to avoid political instability.
Although it appears that not much clear thinking has been done on this issue, one can extract certain underlying assumptions. First, because a noteworthy characteristic of the "Iranian model" is anti-Americanism, it is assumed that an adoption of Islamic-oriented government on the part of any Central Asian Muslim country would automatically lead to anti-Americanism. A related notion is that Islamic resurgence would inevitably lead to extremism and anti-Westernism. Granted that the Iranian revolution has done everything to prove this fallacious notion, not much thought has been given to the fact that there are other countries at least as Islamic as Iran--Saudi Arabia and Pakistan--that are nonetheless allies of the United States. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are practitioners of traditional Islam, but their overall dealings with the international community cannot be labelled examples of Islamic extremism.
Western thinking now realizes that Islamic societies are not likely to become examples of liberal democracy. There are certain cultural and religious idiosyncrasies of those societies that would not allow them to assume the liberalism of the United States or Western Europe. However, this does not mean that Muslim polities would not adopt some form of democracy. Islamic orthodoxy and democracy can be made compatible, as long as the governments practice some form of secularism without necessarily flaunting it. Any domestic debate along the line of "Islam versus secularism" in any Islamic country is bound to create unmanageable tensions, indeed even potential instability. A not-so-subtle assumption underlying such a debate would be that, somehow, secularism is "superior" to Islam, and such a proposition would not be accepted by a majority of the people in any Islamic society. Even Turkey can be called an example of a secular government merely presiding over a Muslim society.
The second assumption related to the Iranian model is that Iran's involvement in Central Asia is inherently destabilizing. As previously noted, Iran is seeking conventional types of relations with Central Asian states in the form of joint economic ventures, trade ties, etc. Moreover, Tehran's increasing reliance on Russia for weapons and, lately, for nuclear technology, would ensure from it a foreign policy behavior in Central Asia that would not jeopardize Russian strategic interests. As a major state of the region, Iran is likely to remain highly active in Central Asia in the coming years.
Not much attention is paid to the fact that Iran remains nervous about a possible unification of the republic of Azerbaijan and its own eastern and western Azerbaijani sections. In fact, the Iranian involvement in mediating the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a good example of how complicated and delicate that region is for Iran. It would suit Iran that this conflict, even if were not resolved, should remain manageable. Any intensification of war between Armenia and Azerbaijan is destined to spill over into the Iranian Azeri section. Iranian maneuvering regarding this conflict has also resulted in frequent criticisms from the republic of Azerbaijan that Tehran does not really want to resolve it. In order to establish its credibility with Armenia, Iran became the first Muslim state outside the CIS to establish diplomatic ties with it.(Note 23) This move lowered suspicion in Yerevan about possible Iranian complicity in this conflict, but the Karabakh issue remained far from being resolved. It should also be remembered that even though a majority of the Azerbaijani population is Shiite, they are of Turkish origin. As such, they also have a strong ethnic affinity and preference for Turkey. In fact, Azerbaijan, as previously noted, is on record for its preference for Turkism and Islam. Whether such an intermingling would mean an emulation of the Turkish "secular model" or a variation more suitable to Azeri politics remains to be seen. Azerbaijan has also replaced its Cyrillic alphabet with the Turkish Latin alphabet.
The Tajik civil war demonstrates that the tug-of-war between ex-Communist and nationalist-Islamic forces has only begun. It was the authoritarian character of the former President Rahman Nabiev that did not allow for the emergence of a political compromise between these groups. This bloody civil war, and the Uzbek-Russian intervention on behalf of the ex-Communist forces, has not only established a dangerous precedent but also sent unambiguous signals to similar forces elsewhere that the current regimes in other Muslim Central Asian states are likely to manifest a similar attitude toward political dissent. Such a reality does not bode well for future peace and stability in these states. The Tajik civil war has established the fact that Iran has stayed away from playing any role, so when or if the nationalist-Islamic coalition forces gain an upper hand in this civil war, it is not likely that they would adopt an Iranian model of Islamic government.
An important variable underlying the promotion of the Turkish secular model was also related to the overplaying of the Turkic ethnic factor in Central Asia. It should be noted that any underscoring of Pan-Turkism may also trigger feelings of pan-Slavism and pan-Iranianism (on the part of the Tajiks and the Iranians). The United States is not paying attention to the fact that such an emphasis also underscores the notion of Pan-Turkism in the region, which is feared by Russia, Armenia, Tajikistan, and Iran.(Note 24) Greeks and Arabs have already accused Turkey of reviving Turan, or Greater Turkistan--from China, across Asiatic Russia, to the Adriatic sea.(Note 25) Moscow charged that the real intention underlying the increased Turkish activities is to obtain nuclear weapons that were in the possession of Kazakhstan, "and of applying 'racial criteria' in its efforts to establish a belt of Turkic-speaking republics south of Russia."(Note 26)
Although Turkey made numerous official statements to assuage the fears of its neighbors that it has no pan-Turkic ambitions, the euphoria about the Turkic variable in the Central Asian Muslim states that was felt in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the heightened Turkish activism made Russia, Iran, Armenia, Greece, and Tajikistan nervous.(Note 27)
There appears to be a worldwide surge among nation-states, especially after the conclusion of the Cold War, to seek geoeconomic objectives actively. This is done through concerted efforts to bring about economic integration and to seek economic links with major economic actors inside and outside their regions. Needless to say, such successful endeavors have their payoffs in terms of an enhancement of geostrategic influence. As major regional actors, Iran and Turkey have manifested strong predilections toward systematically converting their political influence into formulating politico-economic blocs, thereby enhancing their geostrategic influence.
It is possible that the high international visibility given to the potential emergence of the EEC as a powerful entity in the 1990s might have stimulated Iran and Turkey to promote similar arrangements in Central Asia. Then, there is an equally important variable of growing strategic cooperation, discussed in the preceding sections.
Both Iran and Turkey operate in an area where the rhetoric, not the reality, of Arab nationalism and pan-Arabism has prevailed at least since World War II. Iran can become a part of the Arab world only by emphasizing pan-Islamism, and in fact, Iran has been underscoring this phenomenon since the early 1980s. However, pan-Islamism is not a slogan that could promote solidarity between Arab countries and Iran, especially when it comes from Tehran. The Shiite Islam of Iran, the long-standing rivalry between the Arab and Persian civilizations, and Iran's own hegemonic tendencies in the Persian Gulf region emerge as some of the chief obstacles in the way of Iranian-Arab solidarity based on Islam. Iran has won some friends among Arab countries, such as Sudan, Libya, and Syria, but no persuasive case can be made that Islam is the predominant basis of cooperation in any of these examples. Sudan is the only country where the rhetoric of Islamic solidarity is used by both sides. However, Sudan is also an economic basket case, and Iran is reported to have injected large sums of money into that country. Libyan and Syrian cooperation with Iran is largely, if not primarily, based on the mutuality of political and strategic objectives, not Islam. In general, none of these actors serves as promising source of economic ties.
In Muslim Central Asia, Iran is not competing against even the rhetoric of pan-Arabism. There are, to be sure, rumblings of pan-Turkism; however, it has not yet become a fully developed exclusionary phenomenon like pan-Arabism. In this part of the world, Iran can emphasize pan-Islamism a bit more successfully than in the Middle East, and the Muslims of the Central Asian states can be religiously mobilized by using this slogan. Nevertheless, the Shiite Muslims of Iran continue to serve as a significant constraint even in Central Asia.
The Central Asian Muslim countries offer Iran a wide range of potential economic activities, and Tehran has been pursuing it. For instance, Iran has activated the moribund Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) established in July 1964. In the February 1992 meeting in Tehran, the original membership of this entity, which included Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey, was expanded to include Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan (figure 6). Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan also attended as observers, and in the course of this meeting Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan became full members. Afghanistan also renewed its request for membership .(Note 28) The Iranian perception of the role of the ECO was manifested by its depiction of this organization by President Rafsanjani as a "bridge between north and south." As if to assure each other, as well as the West, both Iran and Turkey emphasized the exclusive economic nature of this organization. This meeting also witnessed the growing rivalry between these two major members. While the late President Ozal insisted that all member states must accept the free market system, President Rafsanjani reacted by accusing Turkey of "trying to impose a Western system to the detriment of tradition Islamic culture."(Note 29) At its May 1992 meeting, members ofECO agreed to grant each other most-favored-nation (MFN) status. This agreement also provided for a plan to expedite development of the Tejen-Sargt-Mashhad trans-Asiatic railroad line by 1995 and to construct a gas pipeline to carry fuel from Turkmenistan to Iran, Turkey, and Europe.(Note 30)
On a different economic front, Iran also proposed the formation of an Organization of the Caspian Sea states, whose membership is to include Russia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan. Turkey characterized this proposal as "superfluous,"(Note 31) while Russia expressed some apprehensions. Moscow was concerned that after the April 1992 division of the Caspian Sea military fleet among Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan, Iran would increase its own strategic presence in that area; Russia's concerns were not baseless. Since the division of the Caspian sea fleet, Iran considers the 1828 treaty--which granted only Russia the right to maintain a navy in that sea--invalid.(Note 32) Iran has also established military and trade ties with Ukraine. In 1992, it exported 4 to 5 million tons of oil to that country. Tehran and Kiev signed an agreement on a joint venture to build three gas pipelines to carry Iranian gas to Ukraine and on to Europe. Azerbaijan is also a party to that agreement.(Note 33)
Turkey is a state that, like Iran, is not a part of the Arab world. Under the legacy of Kemal Ataturk, it has remained loyal to the dual traditions of secularism and pro-Westernism. Because of its secular character, it has nothing to do with Pan-Islamism,at least officially.(Note 34) In Central Asia, however, Turkey has found the commonality of Turkic the variable, although it cannot go too far in playing up this variable without triggering charges of racism on the part of Russia, Greece, and the Arab countries.
An interesting aspect of the Turkic variable is that it appears significant when examined from outside that area. However, when viewed from within the region, even the Turkic languages in all the Muslim Central Asian countries (save Tajikistan) do not allow for free communication among these states. So, while Turkey and the rest of the Central Asian countries (save Tajikistan again) may feel euphoric about being Turkic, there is no guarantee that that fact alone could become a basis for cooperation. The highly divisive legacy of pan-Arabism serves as a constant reminder that nation-states are more likely to cooperate based on mutual tangible interests than on a highly emotive and charged concept, such as Arab nationalism. It may not be too long before the Central Asian countries will also experience this uneasy reality. The United States has emphased the Turkic variable largely because it hoped that all Muslim Central Asian states would gravitate toward Turkey instead of Iran.
Turkey has also intensified its economic activities in Central Asia. In the ECO, Turkey must share the limelight with Iran. Ankara felt that it needed a separate economic forum, and so it established the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization in 1992. Its signatories included Turkey, Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, and Armenia plus the Balkan states of Romania, Albania, and Greece. From the perspective of economics, the Black Sea Organization does not have tremendous potential. Aside from Greece, Turkey is the only member which is at all advanced and has a self-sufficient economy. The remainder of its membership has to undergo a major transformation from a state-controlled to a market-oriented economy. Its biggest problem in the initial phase of its creation is finding direly needed capital investments. It is from the perspective of politics that this pact achieves major significance.
The Black Sea Organization is likely to serve several foreign policy objectives of Turkey:
Ankara can use it to enter the trans-caucasian, Central Asian, and Russian markets. In all these areas, Iran is likely to pose a source of competition, because it has also escalated the pace of its economic activities.
If Turkey remains outside the EEC, the Black Sea Organization could serve as a useful vehicle to do business with Europe. Russian membership in this fledgling entity could become an important source of attracting European capital in the near future, as Western Europe remains keenly interested in the stability of the CIS.
Ankara could potentially exploit its enhanced significance--stemming from this organization and from its heightened activism in the CIS region--to gain membership in the EEC in the not-too-distant future. The membership of Greece in the Black Sea Organization is also likely to improve the relationship between Ankara and Athens. Such a mended relationship might stop Greece from objecting to Turkey's entry into the EEC. Before Athens end its opposition, however, the issue of the continued division of Cyprus must also be resolved.
The incorporation of Armenia in the Black Sea Organization might turn out to be a major step toward defusing the historical conflict between Ankara and Yerevan. Moreover, through their membership in this organization, both Azerbaijan and Armenia might be able to find a negotiated solution of the Karabakh conflict. Ankara has the potential to emerge as a credible mediator at some point.
Keeping the growing international trend of establishing regional economic arrangements in mind, Turkey also proposed a Turkic Common Market. Its aim is to establish a common currency. This proposal is also aimed at making Turkey the center of a variety of economic activities involving the Turkic states of Central Asia. It will be a long time before a proposal of this nature gathers momentum, however.