Order Code IB93108
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Central Asia:
Regional Developments and
Implications for U.S. Interests
Updated August 15, 2003
Jim Nichol
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Historical Background
Overview of U.S. Policy Concerns
Post-9/11 and Afghanistan
Support for Operation Iraqi Freedom
Fostering Pro-Western Orientations
Russia’s Role
Obstacles to Peace and Independence
Regional Tensions and Conflicts
Democratization and Human Rights
Democracy Pledges
Security and Arms Control
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Trade and Investment
Energy Resources
Aid Overview
LEGISLATION

---

IB93108
08-15-03
Central Asia: Regional Developments and
Implications for U.S. Interests
SUMMARY
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in
policy also aims to integrate these states into
1991, the United States recognized the inde-
the international community so that they
pendence of all the former Central Asian
follow responsible security and other policies,
republics and established diplomatic relations
and to discourage xenophobic and anti-West-
with each by mid-March 1992. The United
ern orientations that threaten peace and stabil-
States also supported their admission to the
ity. The Administration is concerned about
Organization on Security and Cooperation in
human rights and civil liberties problems in all
Europe (OSCE) and other Western organiza-
the states. The Administration’s policy goals
tions, and elicited Turkish support in counter-
in Central Asia reflect the differing character-
ing Iranian influence in the region. Congress
istics of these states.
U.S. interests in
was at the forefront in urging the formation of
Kazakhstan include the security and elimina-
coherent U.S. policies for aiding these and
tion of Soviet-era nuclear and biological
other Eurasian states of the former Soviet
weapons
materials
and
facilities.
In
Union, and approved the Freedom Support
Tajikistan, U.S. aid increasingly focuses on
Act and other legislation for this purpose.
economic reconstruction. U.S. energy firms
have invested in oil and natural gas develop-
Soon after the terrorist attacks on Amer-
ment in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and
ica on September 11, 2001, all the Central
Uzbekistan.
Asian states offered overflight and other
support to coalition anti-terrorist efforts in
Some observers call for different empha-
Afghanistan.
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and
ses or levels of U.S. involvement in Central
Uzbekistan have hosted coalition troops and
Asia.
Some have called for strengthening
provided access to airbases. After 9/11, the
conditions linking aid to progress in improv-
United States boosted its security assistance
ing human rights or in making adequate prog-
throughout the region for anti-terrorism,
ress in democratization and the creation of
counter-narcotics, non-proliferation, border
free markets. Some have disputed the impor-
and customs, and defense cooperation pro-
tance of energy resources to U.S. national
grams, while also increasing aid for democra-
security.
Others point to civil and ethnic
tization and free market reforms.
tensions in the region as possibly endangering
U.S. lives and investments. Heightened con-
U.S. policy goals in Central Asia include
gressional interest in Central Asia was re-
fostering stability, democratization, free mar-
flected in passage of “Silk Road” language in
ket economies, free trade and transport
late 1999 (P.L.106-113) authorizing enhanced
throughout
the
Eurasian
corridor,
de-
U.S. policy attention and aid to support con-
nuclearization in the non-Russian states, and
flict amelioration, humanitarian needs, eco-
adherence to international human rights stan-
nomic development, transport (including
dards. An over-arching U.S. priority is to dis-
energy pipelines) and communications, border
courage attempts by extremist or terrorist
controls, democracy, and the creation of civil
regimes and groups to block or subvert prog-
societies in the South Caucasian and Central
ress toward these goals.
Administration
Asian states.
Congressional Research Service
˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB93108
08-15-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On August 8, 2003, President Bush reported to Congress that Turkmenistan was no longer
in full compliance with international standards concerning freedom of emigration, as set forth
in Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (the “Jackson-Vanik Amendment”). Of concern were
Turkmenistan’s recent imposition of exit visas and selective use of emigration regulations.
However, the President exercised his waiver authority under the Act after receiving
assurances from Turkmenistan that it would move to restore freedom of emigration (see also
“Most-Favored-Nation Treatment,” in the CRS Trade Briefing Book, updated regularly) .
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Historical Background
Central Asia consists of the former
Central Asia: Basic Facts
Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Area: 1.6 million sq. mi., larger than India; Kaz-
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, akhstan: 1.1 m. sq. mi.; Kyrgyzstan: 77,000 sq.
and borders Russia, China, the Middle East, mi.; Tajikistan: 55,800 sq. mi.; Turkmenistan:
and South Asia. The major peoples of all but 190,000 sq. mi.; Uzbekistan: 174,500 sq. mi.
Tajikistan speak Turkic languages (the Tajiks Population: 57.1 million (2002 est., Economist
speak an Iranian language), and most are Intelligence Unit), somewhat less than France;
Sunni Muslims (some Tajiks are Shiia Kazakhstan: 14.8 m.; Kyrgyzstan: 4.9 m.; Taj-
Muslims). Most are closely related histori- ikistan: 6.4 m.; Turkmenistan: 5.4 m.; Uzbeki-
cally and culturally. By the late 19th century, stan: 25.6 m.
Russian
tsars
had
conquered
the
last Gross Domestic Product: $47.7 billion in 2001;
independent khanates and nomadic lands of per capita GDP is about $948; poverty is ram-
Central Asia. After the breakup of the tsarist pant. Kazakhstan: $24.8b.; Kyrgyzstan: $1.6b.;
empire, Central Asia was at first included Tajikistan: $1.1b.; Turkmenistan: $12.3b.; Uz-
bekistan: $7.9 b. (EIU, current prices)
within Soviet Russia, but by 1936 five “union
republics”
had
been
created.
Soviet
communist rule resulted in massive loss of life from collectivization and purges, though
economic development took place. Upon the collapse of the Soviet Union in December
1991, the five republics gained worldwide diplomatic recognition. (For overviews, see CRS
Report 97-1058, Kazakhstan; CRS Report 97-690, Kyrgyzstan; CRS Report 98-594,
Tajikistan; CRS Report 97-1055, Turkmenistan; and CRS Report RS21238, Uzbekistan.)
Overview of U.S. Policy Concerns
After the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, the United States recognized
the independence of all the former Central Asian republics. U.S. diplomatic relations were
established with all five new states by mid-March 1992. Faced with calls in Congress and
elsewhere that the Administration devise a policy on aiding the new Eurasian states,
President George H.W. Bush sent the Freedom Support Act to Congress, which was
amended and signed into law in October 1992 (P.L. 102-511). In 1999, Congressional
concerns led to passage of the “Silk Road Strategy Act” authorizing language (contained in
CRS-1

---

IB93108
08-15-03
Consolidated Appropriations for FY2000; P.L. 106-113) calling for enhanced policy and aid
to support conflict amelioration, humanitarian needs, economic development, transport and
communications, border controls, democracy, and the creation of civil societies in the South
Caucasus and Central Asia.
There are various views among U.S. policymakers and others on the types and levels
of U.S. involvement in the region, although there is basic support for advocating democratic
and economic reforms and stability in the region. Many of those who endorse continued or
enhanced U.S. support for Central Asia argue that political instability and the growth of
terrorist groups in Central Asia can produce spillover effects both in important nearby states,
including U.S. allies and friends such as Turkey, and worldwide. They also argue that the
United States has a major interest in preventing terrorist regimes or groups from illicitly
acquiring nuclear weapons-related technology in the region. They maintain that U.S.
interests do not perfectly coincide with those of its allies and friends, that Turkey and other
actors possess limited aid resources, and that the United States is in the strongest position as
the superpower to influence democratization and respect for human rights. They stress that
U.S. leadership in world aid efforts to foster reform will help alleviate the social distress
exploited by anti-Western Islamic extremist groups to gain new members. Although many
U.S. policymakers acknowledge a role for a democratizing Russia in Central Asia, they stress
that U.S. and other Western aid and investment strengthen the independence of the Central
Asian states and forestall Russian attempts to re-subjugate these former Soviet republics.
Some views of policymakers and academics who previously objected to a more forward
U.S. policy toward Central Asia appeared less salient after 9/11, but aspects of these views
could gain more credence once Afghanistan becomes more stable. These observers argued
that the United States historically had few interests in this region and that developments there
were largely marginal to U.S. interests. They discounted fears that anti-Western Islamic
extremism would make enough headway to threaten secular regimes or otherwise harm U.S.
interests. Other still topical arguments include whether the United States should continue
to try to foster democratization among cultures some view as historically attuned to
authoritarianism. Some observers urge reducing or cutting off most aid to repressive
governments that widely violate human rights, arguing that such aid provides tacit support
for these regimes, and might even unwittingly fuel the rise of Islamic fundamentalism as an
alternative channel of dissent. These observers reject arguments that U.S. interests in anti-
terrorism, nonproliferation, regional cooperation, trade, and investment outweigh concerns
over democratization and human rights. They warn that the populations of these states may
come to view U.S. engagement as propping up authoritarian leaders. Some observers point
to civil problems in the region as another reason for the United States to eschew major
involvement such as military access that might place more U.S. personnel and citizens in
danger.
Post-9/11 and Afghanistan. Since the terrorist attacks on the United States on
September 11, 2001, the Administration has stated that U.S. policy toward Central Asia
focuses on three inter-related activities: the promotion of security, domestic reforms, and
energy development. The 9/11 attacks led the Administration to realize that “it was critical
to the national interests of the United States that we greatly enhance our relations with the
five Central Asian countries” to prevent them from becoming harbors for terrorism,
according to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State B. Lynn Pascoe in testimony in June 2002.
In a speech on April 10, 2003, Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Jones reiterated that the
CRS-2

---

IB93108
08-15-03
“United States is wholly committed to intensive engagement and dialogue” with Central
Asia, a “pivotal region of the world,” and will assist the countries to “remain independent,
and become democratic, stable, and prosperous partners of the United States.”
The Central Asian states were predisposed to welcome U.S.-led anti-terrorist operations
in Afghanistan.
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan had long supported the Afghan Northern
Alliance’s combat against the Taliban, and these states, along with Kyrgyzstan, had suffered
from incursions by the IMU and other terrorists who were harbored by the Taliban. All the
Central Asian states feared Afghanistan as a base for terrorism, crime, and drug trafficking
(even Turkmenistan, which tried to reach some accommodation with the Taliban).
On September 24, 2001, Turkmenistan’s President Saparamurad Niyazov gave his
consent for ground transport and overflights to deliver humanitarian aid to support U.S. anti-
terrorism efforts in Afghanistan because “evil must be punished.” Kazakhstan’s President
Nazarbayev also offered airfields, military bases, and airspace.
That evening, President
Putin stated that Russia would support U.S. efforts by providing intelligence, overflight
rights for humanitarian cargoes, access to Central Asian airbases, and support for the
Northern Alliance. The next day, Kyrgyz President Akayev indicated that he had received
the backing of the other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States’ (CIS’s)
Collective Security Treaty (CST; members include Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan) for U.S. use of Kyrgyz airspace for anti-terrorism in Afghanistan.
On September 24, 2001, Uzbek President Islam Karimov permitted U.S. use of Uzbek
airspace against Afghan-based terrorists for “humanitarian and security purposes” if
Uzbekistan’s security was guaranteed. This condition was met with a U.S.-Uzbek agreement
signed on October 7, a Joint Statement issued on October 12, 2001, and a Declaration on the
Strategic Partnership signed on March 12, 2002 (see below, Security).
The United States and Kazakhstan signed a memorandum of understanding on July 10,
2002, permitting U.S. military aircraft to use Kazakhstan’s airport in Almaty for emergency
military landings. Another agreement signed later provided increased U.S. military training
and equipment for the Kazakh armed forces. The United States is refurbishing a military
base at Atyrau on the Caspian Sea to help Kazakhstan provide land and sea security for its
energy resources. The State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism 2002 report,
released April 30, 2003, highlighted Kazakhstan’s, Kyrgyzstan’s, Tajikistan’s, and
Uzbekistan’s continuing “strong” and “unprecedented” support for U.S. and international
anti-terrorism efforts, including Kazakhstan’s approval of more than 800 U.S. overflights in
support of coalition actions in Afghanistan since December 2001 (see also below, Security).
Support for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Uzbekistan was the only Central Asian
state that joined the “coalition of the willing” in February-March 2003 that endorsed
prospective U.S.-led military coalition operations in Iraq. Uzbek President Islam Karimov
on March 6 stated that the Iraq operation was a continuation of “efforts to break the back of
terrorism.” On May 8, his National Security Council endorsed sending medical and other
humanitarian and rebuilding aid to Iraq. Among other Central Asian states, Kazakh Foreign
Minister Kasymzhomart Tokayev on March 28 voiced general support for disarming Iraq.
Reportedly responding to a U.S. appeal, Nazarbayev proposed and the legislature in late May
approved sending 25 military personnel to Iraq. Kyrgyzstan’s Legislative Assembly (lower
chamber) issued a statement on March 24 calling for the United States to cease “gross
violations” of international law by undertaking military action in Iraq. During Kyrgyz
CRS-3

---

IB93108
08-15-03
Foreign Minister Askar Aitmatov’s June 2003 U.S. visit, however, he told Vice President
Cheney that Kyrgyzstan was ready to send peacekeepers to Iraq (and Afghanistan). Tajik
President Emomaliy Rakhmanov reportedly on March 13 refused Russia’s request to
denounce coalition actions in Iraq. Tajik political analyst Suhrob Sharipov in April argued
that Tajikistan had taken a neutral stance toward U.S.-led coalition actions in Iraq because
Tajikistan had benefitted from U.S. aid to rebuild the country and from the improved security
climate following U.S.-led actions against terrorism in Afghanistan.
Fostering Pro-Western Orientations
The United States has encouraged the Central Asian states to become responsible
members of the international community, and supported their admission to the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), NATO bodies, and other Western
organizations. The United States has supported these integrative goals through bilateral aid
and through coordination with other aid donors, including regional powers such as Turkey.
These and other means are used to discourage radical regimes, groups, and Islamic
fundamentalists — who use repression or violence to oppose democratization — from
attempts to gain influence. All the Central Asian leaders publicly embrace Islam, but display
hostility toward Islamic fundamentalism. At the same time, they have established some
trade and aid ties with Iran. While they have had greater success in attracting development
aid from the West than from the East, some observers argue that, in the long run, their
foreign policies will probably not be anti-Western, but may more closely reflect the concerns
of other moderate Islamic states. (See also CRS Report RL30294, Central Asia’s Security.)
Russia’s Role. The long-term impact of the events of 9/11 on the Central Asian
states may depend upon the duration and scope of U.S. and coalition presence in the region,
Russia’s countervailing polices, and the fate of Afghanistan. Prior to 9/11, Putin had tried
to strengthen Russia’s interests in the region while opposing the growth of U.S. and other
influence. On the other hand, while calling Central Asia an important or even “vital” interest
of the United States, U.S. Administrations had generally deferred to Russia on regional
security issues and had refused major U.S. military assistance to the states to combat
terrorism. Russia’s reasons for permitting the increased U.S. and coalition presence after
9/11 included its interests in boosting some economic and other ties to the West and its hope
of regaining influence in a post-Taliban Afghanistan. Russia cooperated with Central Asia
in supporting U.S. and coalition efforts, including by quickly sending military equipment and
advisors to assist the Northern Alliance in attacks on the Taliban.
In accord with long-standing U.S. policy, the Bush Administration generally views a
democratizing Russia as able to play a traditional stabilizing role in Central Asia, though
emphasizes that Russia should not seek to dominate the region or exclude Western and other
involvement. Assistant Secretary of State Jones reiterated this policy on February 11, 2002,
stating that “our goal with the Russians is to make sure they understand that ... we’re not
trying to take over Central Asia from them, but we have ... international common interests
that we will be transparent about.” While some observers continue to warn that Russia seeks
to reabsorb Central Asia into a new empire, others discount Russia’s capabilities, if not
intentions, because of what they view as Russia’s own internal economic, ethnic, and military
problems. Virtually all U.S. analysts agree, however, that Russia’s actions should be
monitored to ensure that they do not infringe on the independence of the Central Asian states.
CRS-4

---

IB93108
08-15-03
Russian officials have emphasized interests in strategic security and economic ties with
Central Asia, and concerns over the treatment of ethnic Russians. Strategic concerns have
focused on drug trafficking and regional conflict, and the region’s role as a buffer to Islamic
extremism. By the late 1990s, Russia’s economic decline and demands by Central Asia
caused it to reduce its security presence, a trend that President Putin appears to be reversing.
About 12,000 Russian Border Troops (mostly ethnic Tajiks under Russian command) still
defend “CIS borders” in Tajikistan, but were largely phased out in Kyrgyzstan in 1999.
Russia justified a 1999 military basing protocol with Tajikistan – for about 8,000 Russian
troops of the 201st motorized rifle division – by citing the Islamic extremist threat to the CIS.
In late 1999, the last Russian military advisors left Turkmenistan. In 1999, Uzbekistan
withdrew from the CST, citing its ineffectiveness and obtrusiveness.
In an apparent shift toward a more activist Russian role in Central Asia, in January
2000, then-Acting President Putin approved a “national security concept” that termed foreign
efforts to “weaken” Russia’s “position” in Central Asia a security threat. In April 2000,
Russia called for the members of the CST to approve the creation of rapid reaction forces,
including in Central Asia, to combat terrorism emanating from Afghanistan, and hinted that
such a force might launch pre-emptive strikes on Afghan terrorist bases. These hints elicited
U.S. calls for Russia to exercise restraint and consult the UN, and elicited Taliban warnings
of reprisals against Central Asian states if they permitted Russia to use their bases for strikes.
Marking mutual concern, Presidents Clinton and Putin agreed at their June 2000 summit to
set up a working group to examine Afghan-related terrorism, and the group held two
meetings prior to 9/11. A May 2001 CST summit approved the creation of a Central Asian
force composed of Kazakh, Kyrgyz, and Tajik country-based battalions and a headquarters
in Bishkek. This initiative seemed in part aimed to protect Russian regional influence in the
face of nascent U.S. and NATO anti-terrorism moves in the region against Afghanistan. CIS
members in 2001 also approved the creation of a regional Anti-Terrorist Center (composed
of intelligence agencies) in Kyrgyzstan. These events prior to 9/11 helped to ease the way
for Russian and Central Asian assistance to the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan.
Soon after 9/11, Russia demonstrably reversed its policy of drawing down its military
presence in Central Asia by increasing its troop presence in Tajikistan. In June 2002, it also
signed accords with Kyrgyzstan extending leases on military facilities, opening shuttered
Kyrgyz defense industries, and training Kyrgyz troops. Most significantly, Kyrgyzstan also
agreed that its Kant airfield outside its capital of Bishkek could be used as a base for the
Central Asian rapid reaction force. In signing the accords, Russian Defense Minister Sergey
Ivanov declared that they showed Russia’s cooperation with the United States and China in
combating terrorism, were necessary for Russia to monitor the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, and reaffirmed Russia’s presence in the region. Uzbekistan’s President
Karimov seemed to be re-evaluating his sometimes cool relations with Russia when on
August 6, 2003, he flattered a visiting Putin by stating that “we are convinced ... that Russia
is rising again and regaining its leading positions that rightfully belong to it.”
Economically, Russia seeks to counter Western business interests and gain substantial
influence over oil and gas resources in the region through participation in joint ventures and
by insisting that pipeline routes transit Russian territory. At the same time, Russia has
avoided large economic subsidies to the region. Russia’s views regarding a Western role in
energy development in the Caspian remain complex. Particularly after the signing of the
Statement on Energy Cooperation at the May 2002 U.S.-Russia summit, it appeared that
CRS-5

---

IB93108
08-15-03
Russia would support or accept a Western role in the Caspian region, including construction
of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline. In April 2003, Leonard Coburn of the U.S.
Energy Department testified to Congress that “the Russians have basically said as long as the
economics are there, they have no objection to [the BTC pipeline].” However, Russian
energy firms (including Lukoil and the state-owned Transneft) have failed to participate in
building or to commit to supplying the BTC pipeline, and some Russian officials have
continued to argue that the pipeline is un-necessary and un-economical, and that a proposed
undersea link to Kazakhstan is environmentally hazardous.
The safety of Russians in Central Asia is a populist concern in Russia, but has in
practice mainly served as a political stalking horse for those in Russia advocating the
“reintegration” of former “Russian lands.” Ethnic Russians residing in Central Asia have
had rising concerns about employment, language, and other policies or practices they deem
discriminatory and many have emigrated, contributing to their decline from 20 million in
1989 to 6.6 million in 2001. They now constitute 12% of the population of Central Asia,
according to the CIS Statistics Agency.
Remaining Russians tend to be elderly or
low-skilled. In Kazakhstan, ethnic Kazakhs have again become the majority. Putin was
criticized by many in Russia in mid-2003 for his allegedly belated response to Niyazov’s
demand in April 2003 that about 95,000 Russians with dual citizenship residing in
Turkmenistan renounce one or the other citizenship.
Obstacles to Peace and Independence
Regional Tensions and Conflicts. The legacies of co-mingled ethnic groups,
convoluted borders, and vague national identities pose challenges to stability in all the
Central Asian states. With the Soviet collapse, most in Central Asia support national
identities, but also are emphasizing identifications with clan, family, region, and Islam.
Some in the four Turkic-language states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and
Uzbekistan) promote a pan-Turkic identity. Most analysts conclude that in the foreseeable
future, the term Central Asia will denote a geographic area more than a region of shared
identities and aspirations, although it can be argued that the land-locked, poverty-stricken,
and non-populous region will need to embrace economic integration in order to develop.
Central Asia’s borders, described as among the world’s most convoluted, fail to
accurately reflect ethnic distributions and are hard to police, hence contributing to potential
instability. Ethnic Uzbeks make up sizeable minorities in the other Central Asian countries
and Afghanistan. In Tajikistan, they make up almost a quarter of the population. More
ethnic Turkmen reside in Iran and Afghanistan — over three million — than in
Turkmenistan. Sizeable numbers of ethnic Tajiks reside in Uzbekistan, and seven million
in Afghanistan. Many Kyrgyz and Tajiks live in China’s Xinjiang province. The fertile
Ferghana Valley was divided by Stalin among Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan,
leaving large numbers of people outside their “national” borders. Criss-crossing mountains
thwart Tajikistan’s territorial integrity by limiting regional intercourse.
Regional cooperation remains stymied by tensions among the states, and extra-regional
cooperative efforts such as the CST Organization (a military secretariat set up in April 2003),
NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PFP), and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
have varied in their effectiveness. In 1996, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan,
CRS-6

---

IB93108
08-15-03
signed the “Shanghai treaty” with China pledging the sanctity and substantial
demilitarization of mutual borders, and in 1997 they signed a follow-on treaty demilitarizing
the 4,300 mile former Soviet-Chinese border. China has used the treaty to pressure the
Central Asian states to deter their ethnic Uighur minorities from supporting separatism in
China’s Xinjiang province, and to get them to extradite Uighurs fleeing China. In 2001,
Uzbekistan joined the group, re-named the SCO. The SCO played no real role in U.S.-led
coalition actions in Afghanistan in the winter of 2001-2002. Some of the motives for
forming the SCO — to counter terrorism and limit U.S. presence — appeared undercut when
the United States moved militarily into the region after 9/11. Nonetheless, Russia and China
appeared to reaffirm these motives during an SCO summit in May 2003. Karimov, who had
previously criticized the SCO as ineffective, reversed course in August 2003 and insisted that
Uzbekistan host the SCO center. In explaining this shift, Karimov stressed Uzbekistan’s
desire for closer ties with Russia, since Russia was playing a larger regional security role.
The Bombings in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. The February 16, 1999, explosions in Tashkent
demonstrated that the government was vulnerable to terrorism. By various reports the
explosions killed 16-28 and wounded 100-351. The aftermath involved wide-scale arrests
of political dissidents and other “accomplices” who some observers deemed unlikely to have
been involved in the bombings. Karimov in April accused Mohammad Solikh (former
Uzbek presidential candidate and head of the banned Erk Party) of masterminding the plot,
along with Tohir Yuldashev (former leader of the banned Uzbek Adolat social movement)
and the Taliban. The first trial of 22 suspects in June resulted in six receiving death
sentences. The suspects were described in court proceedings as Islamic terrorists who
received training in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, and Russia , and were led by Solikh,
Yuldashev, and Jama Namanganiy (the latter two were leaders of the terrorist Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan or IMU). In late 2000, the Uzbek Supreme Court handed down
death sentences in absentia for Yuldashev and Namanganiy, and 15.5 years in prison for
Solikh. Solikh denies that he is a member of the IMU and both Solikh and Yuldashev deny
involvement in the bombings, although Yuldashev has warned that more bombings might
occur if Karimov does not step down.
In September 2000, the State Department designated the IMU as a Foreign Terrorist
Organization, stating that the IMU resorts to terrorism, actively threatens U.S. interests, and
attacks American citizens. The “main goal of the IMU is to topple the current government
in Uzbekistan,” it warned, linking the IMU to bombings and attacks on Uzbekistan in 1999-
2000. The IMU is being aided by Afghanistan’s Taliban and by Osama bin Laden, according
to the State Department, and it stressed that the “United States supports the right of
Uzbekistan to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity from the violent actions of the
IMU,” in ways that respect basic human rights. According to Patterns of Global Terrorism
2002, IMU forces assisting the Taliban against coalition actions in Afghanistan suffered
major losses, and Namanganiy was probably killed, but the IMU remains a regional threat.
Some officials in Central Asia claimed in August 2003 that the IMU and other terrorist
groups appeared to be recovering somewhat from their losses.
The Incursions into Kyrgyzstan. Several hundred Islamic extremists and others first
invaded Kyrgyzstan in July-August 1999. Namanganiy headed the largest guerrilla group.
They seized hostages and several villages, allegedly seeking to create an Islamic state in
south Kyrgyzstan as a springboard for a jihad in Uzbekistan. With Uzbek and Kazakh air
and other support, Kyrgyz forces finally forced the guerrillas out in October 1999.
CRS-7

---

IB93108
08-15-03
According to some observers, the incursion indicated both links among terrorism in
Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Russia (Chechnya), and elsewhere and the weakness of
Kyrgyzstan’s security forces. Dozens of IMU and other insurgents again invaded Kyrgyzstan
and Uzbekistan in August 2000. Uzbekistan provided air and other support, but Kyrgyz
forces were largely responsible for defeating the insurgents by late October 2000, reporting
the loss of 30 Kyrgyz troops. According to the State Department, the IMU did not invade
the region in the summer before September 11, 2001, in part because bin Laden had secured
its aid for the Taliban offensive against the Afghan Northern Alliance.
Civil War in Tajikistan. Tajikistan was among the Central Asian republics least
prepared and inclined toward independence when the Soviet Union broke up. In September
1992, a loose coalition of nationalist, Islamic, and democratic parties and groups tried to
take over. Kulyabi and Khojenti regional elites, assisted by Uzbekistan and Russia, launched
a successful counteroffensive that by the end of 1992 had resulted in 20,000-40,000
casualties and up to 800,000 refugees or displaced persons, about 80,000 of whom fled to
Afghanistan. In 1993, the CIS authorized “peacekeeping” in Tajikistan, consisting of
Russian and token Kazakh, Kyrgyz, and Uzbek troops. After the two sides agreed to a
cease-fire, the U.N. Security Council established a small U.N. Mission of Observers in
Tajikistan (UNMOT) in December 1994.
In June 1997, Tajik President Emomali
Rakhmanov and rebel leader Seyed Abdullo Nuri signed a comprehensive peace agreement.
Benchmarks of the peace process were largely met, and UNMOT pulled out in May 2000,
replaced by a small U.N. aid contingent, but Russian troops have remained. Tajikistan’s
future remains clouded by regional, ethnic, and religious tensions, and it is among the
world’s poorest countries. Recent moves by Rakhmanov to marginalize the political
opposition and constrain freedom of religion threaten Tajikistan’s fragile peace.
State Department officials served as observers of the peace talks and pledged to help
Tajikistan rebuild after the peace settlement, indications of U.S. efforts to ease ethnic and
civil tensions in the Eurasian states. The United States has been the major humanitarian
donor to alleviate the effects of the Tajik civil war. The United States supported the presence
of U.N. observers in Tajikistan, and urged Russian-CIS “peacekeepers” to cooperate fully
with U.N. observers. U.S. programs in Tajikistan were complicated by the U.S. closure of
its embassy in Dushanbe in 1998, and relocation of personnel to Kazakhstan, because of
inadequate security. Since 2000, some diplomatic personnel have traveled back and forth
to Dushanbe. A site has been leased where a secure chancery is being built.
Democratization and Human Rights
A major goal of U.S. policy in Central Asia has been to foster the long-term
development of democratic institutions and policies upholding human rights.
U.S.
democratization support has been provided for political parties, voter education and electoral
laws, legal and constitutional reform, media, structuring the division and balance of
governmental powers, and parliamentary and educational exchanges. At the same time, the
United States has worked with the ex-Communist Party officials who have led in the five
states (even in Tajikistan, the current president was once a low-level party official) since
before independence, recognizing that they may continue to hold power for some time.
CRS-8

---

IB93108
08-15-03
Possible scenarios of political development in Central Asia include continued rule in
most of the states by former Soviet elites, gradual transitions to more nationalistic elites who
are at least somewhat democratic and Western-oriented, or large-scale and perhaps violent
transitions to Islamic fundamentalist or xenophobic rule. All the Central Asian leaders have
given assurances to the United States that they support democratization, but have continued
to rule largely as they did during the communist period, with minimal adaptations. They
have remained in power by orchestrating extensions of their terms and by eliminating
possible contenders. Belying the appearance of political stability, however, alleged coup
attempts have occurred in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan’s, Turkmenistan’s,
and Kyrgyzstan’s regimes face rising popular protests.
Democracy Pledges. During Nazarbayev’s 1994 U.S. visit, he and then-President
Clinton signed a Charter on Democratic Partnership recognizing Kazakhstan’s commitments
to the rule of law, respect for human rights, and economic reform. During his December
2001 visit, Nazarbayev repeated these pledges in a joint statement with President Bush. In
March 2002, Uzbek Foreign Minister Abdulaziz Komilov and Secretary Powell signed a
Strategic Partnership Declaration pledging Uzbekistan to “intensify the democratic
transformation” and improve freedom of the press. During previous visits in 1997 and 1999
to Washington, D.C., Tajikistan’s President Rakhmanov was not received at the presidential
level as a protest against failures in democratization, but during his December 2002 visit he
met with President Bush and other top officials. The Administration highlighted Tajikistan’s
recent “significant progress” in democratization, and Rakhmanov pledged to continue
“democratic and legal reforms ... that expand fundamental freedoms and human rights.”
According to the State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for
2002, however, none of the states have made much progress in democratization.
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are generally viewed as the most repressive, while Kazakhstan
and Kyrgyzstan permit some limited free expression and other rights. Tajikistan experienced
many conflict-related human rights abuses during its civil war, but there have been a few
human rights improvements since then.
Non-favored faiths, missionaries, and pious
Muslims face religious rights abuses in all the states. Unfair elections and unseemly
extensions of presidential terms increase political alienation and violence aimed against the
regimes. In its June 2003 Trafficking in Persons Report, the State Department categorized
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan as having serious problems with human trafficking for labor or
prostitution. If the states do not make serious efforts to reduce trafficking over the next year,
they may be subject to U.S. aid sanctions. Stating that it was responding to widespread
international criticism, Kazakhstan in July 2003 enacted anti-trafficking laws.
The U.N. Rapporteur on Torture in March 2003 completed a draft report on his late
2002 visit to Uzbekistan that concluded that police and prison officials systematically
employed torture and other coercive means to obtain confessions and as punishment. The
Uzbek government denied that human rights problems in the prisons were systematic, while
admitting that some instances of abuse occurred but were being fully addressed. In a speech
on April 10, 2003, Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Jones reported that the
Administration’s “persistent and consistent diplomatic engagement” with Uzbekistan had
resulted in “real achievements” in improving human rights conditions in Uzbekistan.
In Turkmenistan, an alleged November 2002 failed coup resulted in dozens of arrests
and trials, the first of which resulted in the quick conviction in late December of former
CRS-9

---

IB93108
08-15-03
Turkmen foreign minister Boris Shikhmuradov and two other opposition leaders (tried in
absentia) for organizing the coup attempt. The U.S. State Department strongly protested
violations of legal due process and “credible reports” of forced confessions and other human
rights abuses. Concerns about human rights led OSCE members to call for a fact-finding
mission. Although Niyazov refused to let the mission into the country, it drew up a sharply
negative assessment of Turkmenistan’s recent human rights record. The United States
supported the passage of a resolution by the U.N. Human Rights Commission in April 2003
that strongly condemned political repression and other human rights abuses in Turkmenistan
(see also CRS Report RS21384, Turkmenistan’s Attempted Coup).
In Congress, conferees on H.R. 4775 (H.Rept.107-593; an emergency supplemental for
FY2002; P.L. 107-206) called for added Foreign Military Financing (FMF) aid to Uzbekistan
to be conditioned on a report by the Secretary of State that it is making progress in meeting
its human rights commitments under the “Strategic Partnership” agreement. Omnibus
Appropriations for FY2003 (P.L. 108-7; signed into law on February 20, 2003) goes further,
forbidding FREEDOM Support Act assistance to the government of Uzbekistan unless the
Secretary of State determines and reports that Uzbekistan is making substantial progress in
meeting its Strategic Partnership Declaration commitments to democratize and respect
human rights. P.L. 108-7 also forbids assistance to the government of Kazakhstan unless the
Secretary of State determines and reports that Kazakhstan has significantly improved its
human rights record during the preceding six-month period.
Unlike the case with
Uzbekistan, the legislation permits the Secretary to waive this requirement on national
security grounds. The Secretary has reported that both states are making such progress,
eliciting some criticism of these findings from Congress. These conditions have been
retained in S.1426, Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY2004. Other current legislation
includes S.J.Res. 3, which criticizes Central Asian governments for human rights abuses, and
calls on the President to condition U.S. political, economic and military relations with the
regional governments on their respect for human rights and democracy. A similar bill,
H.Con.Res. 32, has been introduced in the House. Provisions of H.Con.Res. 32 and S.J.Res.
3 have been incorporated into H.R.1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003
(see below, Legislation).
Security and Arms Control
Since 9/11, U.S. and coalition action in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) to halt the
export of terrorism from Afghanistan has greatly increased the security of Central Asia. The
development of U.S. security ties with Central Asia pre-9/11 facilitated the cooperation of
the states in OEF. Reportedly, such pre-9/11 ties included Uzbek permission for U.S.
clandestine efforts against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. According to Assistant Secretary of
Defense Crouch in testimony in June 2002, “our military relationships with each [Central
Asian] nation have matured on a scale not imaginable prior to September 11th.” Kyrgyzstan,
he relates, is a “critical regional partner” in OEF, providing basing for combat and combat
support units at Manas Airport (at the U.S.-designated Ganci airbase) for U.S., French,
Italian, Norwegian, Canadian, and South Korean forces. Uzbekistan provides a base for U.S.
operations at Karshi-Khanabad and a base for German units at Termez, and a land corridor
to Afghanistan for humanitarian aid via the Friendship Bridge at Termez. Kazakhstan has
provided overflight rights and expedited rail transhipment of supplies. Turkmenistan has
permitted blanket overflight and refueling privileges for humanitarian flights. Tajikistan has
CRS-10

---

IB93108
08-15-03
permitted use of its international airport in Dushanbe for U.S., British, and French refueling
and basing. While the Administration has rejected the idea of permanent military bases in
these states, Crouch stated in June 2002 that “for the foreseeable future, U.S. defense and
security cooperation in Central Asia must continue to support actions to deter or defeat
terrorist threats” and to build effective armed forces under civilian control. In July 2003,
Kyrgyz security officials pointed to the impermanence of U.S. coalition basing and the
coalition’s focus on Afghanistan as justifying Kyrgyzstan’s agreement to host 500 Russian
troops — who would focus on combating regional terrorism — at the Kant airbase. (See also
CRS Report RL30294, Central Asia’s Security.)
Among the accords, on March 12, 2002, a U.S.-Uzbekistan Declaration on the Strategic
Partnership was signed that includes a nonspecific security guarantee. The United States
affirms that “it would regard with grave concern any external threat” to Uzbekistan’s security
and would consult with Uzbekistan “on an urgent basis” regarding a response. The two
states pledge to intensify military cooperation, including “re-equipping the Armed Forces”
of Uzbekistan. Similarly, visiting Kyrgyz President Askar Akayev and President Bush issued
a joint statement on September 23, 2002, pledging to deepen the strategic partnership,
including cooperation in counter-terrorism.
A small but increasing amount of U.S. security assistance was provided to the region
pre-9/11, and much more after 9/11. All the states receive FMF and International Military
Education and Training (IMET) assistance, and are eligible to receive Excess Defense
Articles (EDA) on a grant basis. Increasing support is also provided to enhance border
security to combat trafficking in drugs, humans, and weapons of mass destruction. In 2003,
the Drug Enforcement Administration will set up its first counter-narcotics unit in the region
in Uzbekistan. U.S. Central Command in 1999 became responsible for U.S. military
engagement activities, planning, and operations in Central Asia. It states that its peacetime
strategy aims to foster “apolitical, professional militaries capable of responding to regional
peacekeeping and humanitarian needs” in the region. USCENTCOM Commanders visited
the region regularly, setting the stage for more extensive military ties post-9/11. Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited the region in December 2001 and April-May 2002.
Efforts to foster military cooperation were furthered when all the Central Asian states
except Tajikistan joined NATO’s PFP by mid-1994. Tajikistan decided to join PFP before
9/11, and signed accords on admission in February 2002. Central Asian officers and troops
have participated in PFP (or “PFP-style”) exercises in the United States since 1995, and U.S.
troops have participated in exercises in Central Asia since 1997. In April 2003, participants
and observers from over nineteen NATO and PFP countries (including all the Central Asian
states but Turkmenistan) took part in “Ferghana 2003” emergency rescue exercises in
Uzbekistan. In July 2003, U.S. and British forces participated in PFP “Steppe Eagle 2003”
anti-terrorism exercises in Kazakhstan.
Weapons of Mass Destruction. Major U.S. security interests have included
elimination of nuclear weapons remaining in Kazakhstan after the breakup of the Soviet
Union and other efforts to control nuclear proliferation in Central Asia. The United States
has tendered aid aimed at bolstering their export and physical controls over nuclear
technology and materials, including because of concerns that Iran is targeting these countries.
In December 2002, Harlan Strauss, the head of Counterproliferation Programs at the U.S.
Defense Department, reported that U.S. aid had assisted Central Asian states during 2002 in
CRS-11

---

IB93108
08-15-03
halting the smuggling of radioactive materials out of the region that could have been used
in so-called “dirty bombs” (radioactive materials mixed with conventional explosives).
After the Soviet breakup, Kazakhstan was on paper a major nuclear weapons power (in
reality Russia controlled these weapons). Though some in Kazakhstan urged “retaining” the
weapons, it pledged to become a non-nuclear weapons state.
All bombers and their
air-launched cruise missiles were removed by late February 1994. On April 21, 1995, the
last of about 1,040 nuclear warheads had been removed from SS-18 missiles and transferred
to Russia, and Kazakhstan announced that it was nuclear weapons-free. The SS-18s were
eliminated by late 1994 and most silos were blown up in 1995-1996. In December 1993, the
United States and Kazakhstan signed a CTR umbrella agreement for the “safe and secure”
dismantling of 104 SS-18s, the destruction of their silos, and related purposes. In June 2002,
the United States and Kazakhstan signed an extension accord to destroy six remaining silos
at the Leninsk testing ground in the Kyzyl-Orda region.
Besides the Kazakh nuclear weapons, there are active research reactors, uranium mines,
and milling facilities in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan that pose proliferation
concerns. Kazakhstan is reported to possess one-fourth of the world’s uranium reserves, and
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are among the world’s top producers of low enriched uranium.
Kazakhstan had a fast breeder reactor at Aktau, the world’s only nuclear desalinization
facility. Shut down in April 1999, it has nearly 300 metric tons of enriched uranium and
plutonium spent fuel in storage pools. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan report that their mining
and milling activities have resulted in massive and hazardous waste dumps. In 1997 and
1999, U.S.-Kazakh accords were signed on safeguarding and mothballing the Aktau reactor
and eventually removing its weapons-grade plutonium.
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan hosted major chemical and biological warfare (CBW)
facilities during the Soviet era. CTR and Energy Department funds are being used to
eliminate infrastructure at a former biological weapons production facility in Stepnogorsk,
Kazakhstan, and for retraining scientists. At the U.S.-Uzbek Joint Commission meeting in
May 1999, the two sides signed a CTR agreement on securing, dismantling, and
decontaminating the Soviet-era Nukus chemical research facility. Other aid will help keep
Uzbek weapons scientists employed in peaceful research. U.S. aid has been used to
eliminate active anthrax spores and other hazards at a Soviet-era CBW testing site on an
island in the Aral Sea belonging to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. (See also CRS Report
RL31539, Nuclear Smuggling and International Terrorism.)
Trade and Investment
The Administration and others stress that U.S. support for free market reforms directly
serves U.S. national interests by opening new markets for U.S. goods and services, and
sources of energy and minerals. U.S. private investment committed to Central Asia has
greatly exceeded that provided to Russia or most other Eurasian states except Azerbaijan,
although the region is relatively isolated and the states lag behind Russia in accommodating
commercial ties. However, corruption is stifling the emergence of the rule of law, as
exemplified by allegations that both Nazarbayev and Niyazov siphoned energy revenues into
bank accounts they controlled.
Currency convertibility problems in Uzbekistan and
Turkmenistan stymie investment, business growth, and trade.
CRS-12

---

IB93108
08-15-03
U.S. trade agreements have been signed and entered into force with all the Central Asian
states. Permanent normal trade relations with Kyrgyzstan were established by law in June
2000, so that Jackson-Vanik trade provisions calling for presidential reports and waivers no
longer apply. The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) has obligated funds for short-term
insurance, loans, or guarantees for export sales of industrial and agricultural equipment and
bulk agricultural commodities to all the states except Tajikistan. The Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC) has signed agreements with all the Central Asian states on
insuring U.S. private investments overseas, and has obligated funds for financing or
insurance in all the states except Tajikistan. The Central Asian American Enterprise Fund,
authorized by Congress to lend up to $150 million, was bedeviled by convertibility problems
and major defaults on its joint venture loans and has halted operations.
All the states of the region possess large-scale resources that could yield export
earnings, but major investments are needed to revamp, develop, or market the resources in
most cases. The Kazakh and Turkmen economies are dependent on energy exports but need
added foreign investment for production and transport. Uzbekistan’s cotton and gold
production rank among the highest in the world and much is exported. It also has moderate
energy reserves. Kyrgyzstan owns major gold mines and strategic mineral reserves, is a
major wool producer, and could benefit from tourism. Tajikistan has one of the world’s
largest aluminum processing plants and is a major cotton grower.
Energy Resources. U.S. policy goals regarding energy resources in the Central
Asian and South Caucasian states have included supporting their sovereignty and ties to the
West, supporting U.S. private investment, promoting Western energy security through
diversified suppliers, assisting ally Turkey, and opposing the building of pipelines that
transit “energy competitor” Iran or otherwise give it undue influence over the region.
Security for Caspian region pipelines and energy resources also has been a recent interest.
President Bush’s May 2001 National Energy Policy report suggests that greater oil
production in the Caspian region could not only benefit regional economies, but also help
mitigate possible world supply disruptions. It recommends U.S. support for building oil and
gas pipelines from Baku, Azerbaijan, through Tbilisi, Georgia, to Ceyhan, Turkey, coaxing
Kazakhstan to use the oil pipeline, and otherwise encouraging the regional states to provide
a stable and inviting business climate for energy development. It avers that the building of
the pipelines will enhance energy supply diversification, including for Georgia and Turkey.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Caspian region is emerging as
a significant source of oil and gas for world markets. Oil resources, DOE reports, are
comparable to those of the North Sea, and Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan rank
among the top countries in terms of proven and probable gas reserves. DOE reports
estimates of 10-17.6 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and 53-83 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas in Kazakhstan, and 98-155 trillion cubic feet of proven gas reserves in
Turkmenistan. Kazakhstan’s Tengiz oil field began to be exploited by Chevron-Texaco and
Kazakhstan during 1993 in a consortium called TengizChevoil (U.S. Exxon-Mobil, ARCO,
and Russia’s LUKoil later joined). The non-Kazakh partners balked in late 2002 at a Kazakh
demand for higher taxes, but the dispute seemed resolved in early 2003. In July 2002,
another consortium led by Italy’s Agip oil firm reported that Kazakhstan’s Kashagan offshore
Caspian oil field had between 7-9 billion barrels of oil in proven reserves and up to 38 billion
barrels in probable reserves, comparable to those of Tengiz. Kazakhstan’s oil exports
CRS-13

---

IB93108
08-15-03
currently are over 630,000 barrels per day (bpd), compared to 3 million bpd for Russia. (See
also CRS Report RS21190, Caspian Oil and Gas: Production and Prospects.)
The Central Asian states have been pressured by Russia to yield portions of their energy
wealth to Russia, in part because Russia controls most existing pipelines to export markets.
In a strategy similar to one Russia has used in other CIS and in Eastern Europe, where it
restricted energy supplies until given commercial concessions, Russia’s restrictions on
Tengiz oil exports to Europe were eased slightly in 1996 after the consortium admitted
LUKoil, and after Gazprom was admitted to another consortium. Russian shareholders have
a controlling interest, 44 percent, in the Caspian pipeline consortium (CPC), which
completed construction in 2001 on a 930-mile oil pipeline from Kazakhstan to Russia’s
Black Sea port of Novorossiysk — the region’s first new large-capacity pipeline — that
initially carries 560,000 bpd, and eventually may carry 1.3 million bpd. President Bush
hailed the opening of the pipeline as an example “that the United States, Russia, and
Kazakhstan are cooperating to build prosperity and stability in this part of the world,” and
that the pipeline also “advances my Administration’s National Energy Policy by developing
a network of multiple Caspian pipelines ... [that] help diversify U.S. energy supply and
enhance our energy security.” However, the Administration still has advocated building
pipelines that break Russia’s near-monopoly of existing routes, as evidenced by an Energy
Cooperation Statement issued at the May 2002 U.S.-Russia Summit that included Russia’s
acceptance of the building of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline.
In the late 1980s, Turkmenistan was the world’s fourth largest natural gas producer. It
is now largely dependent on Russian export routes. It tried unsuccessfully for several years
to get higher prices for its gas sales to Russia’s natural gas firm Gazprom (or its subsidiary
Itera). Appearing to resolve this issue, Presidents Putin and Niyazov signed a 25-year accord
in April 2003 on the supply of up to 80 million cubic meters of gas per year to Russia, tying
up the bulk of Turkmenistan’s planned gas exports. Under the deal, Gazprom will pay far
less than world market price for the gas, permitting it to export more of its own gas to Europe
at world market prices. According to Niyazov, the deal could result in revenues of up to
$100 billion for Turkmenistan (plus goods and services Gazprom will value at $100 billion),
compared to $300 billion that would be earned by Gazprom, seemingly indicating Niyazov’s
resignation concerning Russia’s control of the main export route.
Before this deal,
Turkmenistan had tried to diversify its export routes. In December 1997, it opened the first
pipeline from Central Asia to the outside world beyond Russia, a 125-mile pipeline linkage
to Iran’s pipeline system. Turkmenistan has been unsuccessful in convincing investors to
help it build a gas pipeline through still-unstable Afghanistan.
Aid Overview
The Bush Administration provided added security and other assistance to the Central
Asian states in FY2002 in response to the events of September 11, 2001. Some observers
characterized this assistance as a U.S. quid pro quo for the use of military facilities and an
incentive for continued cooperation.
The Administration has argued that the safer
environment in the Central Asian states fostered by security assistance and the U.S. military
presence should permit greater democratization, respect for human rights, and economic
liberalization in the region, and the development of Caspian energy resources.
CRS-14

---

IB93108
08-15-03
For much of the 1990s and until 9/11, the United States provided much more aid each
year to Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, and Georgia than to any Central Asian state (most such
aid was funded from the FREEDOM Support Act account in Foreign Operations
Appropriations, but some derived from other program and agency budgets). Cumulative
foreign aid budgeted to Central Asia for FY1992 through FY2002 amounted to $2.76 billion,
about 13% of the amount budgeted to all the Eurasian states, reflecting the lesser priority
given to these states prior to 9/11. Budgeted spending for FY2002 for Central Asia, during
OEF, was greatly boosted in absolute amounts and as a percent of total aid to Eurasia. Aid
amounts for FY2003 and proposed for FY2004 appear less in absolute amounts than in
FY2002, but aid to Central Asia planned for FY2004 may loom larger as a percent (31%) of
the total FREEDOM Support Act and other Function 150 aid to Eurasia (see Table 1).
Besides bilateral and regional aid, the United States contributes to international financial
institutions and nongovernmental organizations that aid Central Asia.
Policy issues
regarding U.S. aid include whether the states are properly using it (is the aid subject to
corruption or is the aid conditioned on reforms), what it should be used for, and who should
receive it. (For details, see CRS Issue Brief IB95077, The Former Soviet Union and U.S.
Foreign Assistance.)
LEGISLATION
H.R. 2800 (Kolbe)
Making Appropriations for Foreign Operations for FY2004. Introduced July 21, 2003;
referred to Committee on Appropriations. Reported July 21 (H.Rept. 108-222). Approved
July 24, 2003; placed on calendar in Senate. Provides $576 million for the Independent
States of the Former Soviet Union.
S. 1426 (McConnell)
Making Appropriations for Foreign Operations for FY2004. Introduced July 17, 2003;
referred to Committee on Appropriations. Ordered to be reported as an original measure July
17 (S.Rept. 108-106).
Provides $596 million for the Independent States of the Former
Soviet Union. Sec. 674 repeats FY2003 democratization and human rights conditions on
assistance to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
H.R. 1950 (Hyde)
Millennium Challenge Account, Peace Corps Expansion, and Foreign Relations
Authorization Act of 2003. Introduced May 5, 2003; reported by the Committees on
International Relations, Armed Services, Energy and Commerce, and Judiciary (H.Rept.108-
105, Parts 1-4). Passed House on July 16, 2003; placed on the Legislative Calendar in the
Senate on July 17, 2003. Sense of the Congress that the President should condition U.S.
political, economic and military relations with Central Asian governments on their respect
for human rights and democracy.
CRS-15

---

IB93108
08-15-03
Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance to Central Asia
(in millions of dollars)
Central
Cumulative Funds
Asian
Budgeted FY1992-
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
Country
FY2002*
Budgeted*
Budgeted*
Est.***
Request***
Kazakhstan
885.95
74.87
89.34
51.183
41.53
Kyrgyzstan
635.03
41.46
95.66
45.378
50.27
Tajikistan
489.96
56.48
141.29
29.007
46.8
Turkmenistan
218.2
12.57
18.06
10.561
11.15
Uzbekistan
530.59
57.22
239.78
80.68
57.46
Total
2,759.73**
242.6
584.13
216.809
207.21
Percent
13%
21%
25%
21.4%
31%
Source: State Department, Office of the Coordinator for U.S. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia.
*FREEDOM Support Act and Agency funds.
**In addition, $22.61 million in region-wide funds were budgeted FY1992-FY2002.
***FREEDOM Support Act and other Function 150 funds, not including Defense or Energy Department funds;
the FY2004 request excludes funding for exchanges.
Map: Central Asia’s New States
CRS-16

---