The Foreign Service Journal, April 2003

Short-Term Tactics vs. Long-Term Interests The usual language used to describe the U.S. presence in Central Asia is that of classical realism: Our foreign policy there is guided by our “interests.” Although vibrant debates emerge about what exactly con- stitutes our interest in Central Asia, the vocabulary is uniformly accepted. If we are in a region, we must have com- pelling interests there (or are there by mistake). If we do not have a presence there, we must not have com- pelling interests (or are mistaken in our non-interven- tion). U.S. policy-makers have elevated self-interest as a cardinal virtue of American foreign policy; indeed, the pursuit of self-interest helps to avoid the sort of wishful thinking that hampered foreign policy before World War II. But the language of realism may itself irk local populations. Take a Central Asian perspec- tive. If the United States is involved in Central Asia for the sole purpose of pursuing its own interests, then it is confirming a wide array of stereotypes about its behavior (many of which emerge from Soviet propaganda). When the U.S. seeks to protect access to global markets, it is interpreted as U.S. economic imperialism — a centerpiece of Soviet depictions of the U.S.-dominated international capi- talism. When the U.S. seeks to oust a regionally destabilizing regime such as the Taliban, it is viewed as an understandable but fundamentally selfish cam- paign. The United States, it is argued, would have stood idly by if the events of Sept. 11, 2001, had occurred in Moscow, Beijing or Kuala Lumpur. Central Asians feel that they are on the map only to the extent that the U.S. can exploit the region’s eco- nomic resources and combat terrorism. Local cul- tures, languages and histories mean nothing. It is all about U.S. interests. The perception that the U.S. is too unilateralist and too self-interested is, of course, broad. Whether this percep- tion is justified or erroneous is irrelevant: the point is that perceptions — right or wrong, justified or not — have a real political impact. In Central Asia, the evidence is that negative perceptions of the United States are creating fer- tile ground for Islamist recruiters. That is, a population that is ambivalent (at best) or hostile (at worst) about U.S. foreign policy, cultural products or morality is a population that is susceptible to certain kinds of extremist appeals. Under such conditions, Islamist “salesmen” find a wide array of “consumers” who are ready to buy into radical ideologies. The U.S., of course, does have compelling interests in the region; central among them is to prevent anti- Americanism from emerging. Doing so will, in turn, complicate Islamist recruitment efforts. Preventing anti-Americanism is, of course, no mean task, but the U.S. has little choice but to do something about it. In at least three areas, the U.S. could have an immediate effect. Winning Hearts and Minds First, the U.S. must uphold international standards for human rights in Central Asia — not only because of a moral imperative, but because this will go far to gain the hearts of local populations. Central Asian leaders, notable for their authoritarian streak even in the 1990s, felt positively emboldened after 2001. As civil liberties came under fire even in the United States and Europe, the pattern was even more dra- matic in Central Asia. Uzbekistan’s President Karimov has intensified his campaign to jail (and often torture) anyone who practices Islam in ways that strike the regime as unusual. Tajikistan’s President Rakhmonov, who until recently paid lip service to human rights standards, has likewise cracked down on alleged Islamists with impunity. Nor are the victims of human rights abuses confined to alleged Islamists. In Kazakhstan — once the region’s hope for economic prosperity and democratic gover- nance — President Nazarbaev has used his privileged position in the U.S.-led war on terrorism to justify a crackdown on a secular, democratic opposition. The arrest on trumped-up charges of rape and speedy convic- tion of Sergei Duvanov, a critic of Nazarbaev who wrote about the latter’s secret bank accounts in Switzerland and ill-begotten spoils, inspired vociferous criticism by inter- national human rights groups and many European states F O C U S 40 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / A P R I L 2 0 0 3 The U.S. has compelling interests in the region, and central among them is to prevent anti-Americanism from emerging.