Order Code RL33458
Central Asia: Regional Developments and
Implications for U.S. Interests
Updated August 30, 2007
Jim Nichol
Specialist in Russian and Central Asian Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

---

Central Asia: Regional Developments and
Implications for U.S. Interests
Summary
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States recognized the
independence of all the former Central Asian republics, supported their admission
into Western organizations, and elicited Turkish support to counter Iranian influence
in the region. Congress was at the forefront in urging the formation of coherent U.S.
policies for aiding these and other Eurasian states of the former Soviet Union.
Soon after the terrorist attacks on America on September 11, 2001, all the
Central Asian states offered overflight and other support to coalition anti-terrorist
efforts in Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan hosted coalition
troops and provided access to airbases. In 2003, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan also
endorsed coalition military action in Iraq, and Kazakhstan provided about two dozen
troops for rebuilding. U.S. policy has emphasized bolstering the security of the
Central Asian “front-line” states to help them combat terrorism, proliferation, and
arms trafficking. Other strategic U.S. objectives have included promoting free
markets, democratization, human rights, and energy development. Such policies aim
to help the states become what the Administration considers to be responsible
members of the international community rather than to degenerate into xenophobic,
extremist, and anti-Western regimes that threaten international peace and stability.
The Administration’s diverse goals in Central Asia have reflected the differing
characteristics of these states. U.S. interests in Kazakhstan have included securing
and eliminating Soviet-era nuclear and biological weapons materials and facilities.
In Tajikistan, U.S. aid has focused on economic reconstruction. U.S. energy firms
have invested in oil and natural gas development in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.
Economic and democratic reforms and border security have been among U.S.
concerns in Kyrgyzstan. U.S. relations with Uzbekistan suffered following the
Uzbek government’s violent crackdown on armed and unarmed protesters in the city
of Andijon in May 2005.
The 110th Congress is likely to continue to be at the forefront in advocating
increased U.S. ties with Central Asia, and in providing backing for use of the region
as a staging area for supporting U.S.-led stabilization efforts in Afghanistan. The
110th Congress is likely to pursue these goals through hearings and legislation on
humanitarian assistance, economic development, security issues, human rights, and
democratization. The July 2006 U.S.-Kyrgyzstan agreement on the continued U.S.
use of airbase facilities in Kyrgyzstan included a U.S. pledge of boosted foreign
assistance and other compensation, which is subject to congressional approval.
Assistance for border and customs controls and other safeguards to prevent the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will likely be ongoing
congressional concerns. Congress will continue to contend with balancing its
concerns about human rights abuses and lagging democratization against other U.S.
interests in continued engagement with the region to advance energy security and
prosecute the Global War on Terror.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of U.S. Policy Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Post-September 11 and Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Support for Operation Iraqi Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Fostering Pro-Western Orientations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Russia’s Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Obstacles to Peace and Independence: Regional Tensions and Conflicts . . . . . . . 8
The 1992-1997 Civil War in Tajikistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
The Incursions into Kyrgyzstan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The 1999 and 2004 Attacks in Uzbekistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The 2005 Violence in Andijon, Uzbekistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Democratization and Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
The Coup in Kyrgyzstan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Turkmanbashi’s Death and Succession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Recent Developments in Kazakhstan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Recent Developments in Tajikistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Security and Arms Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Closure of Karshi-Khanabad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Weapons of Mass Destruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Trade and Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Oil and Natural Gas Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
U.S. Aid Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Congressional Conditions on Kazakh and Uzbek Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
110th Congress Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
List of Figures
Figure 1. Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
and Uzbekistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
List of Tables
Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance to Central Asia, FY1992 to FY2008 . . . . . . . 34

---

Central Asia: Regional Developments and
Implications for U.S. Interests
Most Recent Developments
Kazakhstan’s largest political party, Nur-Otan, led by President Nursultan
Nazarbayev, reportedly received 88.05% of 8.87 million votes cast and won all 98
seats in a legislative election held on August 18, 2007. (An additional nine deputies
were designated by a civic organization headed by Nazarbayev.) The other six
parties running in the election were unable to clear a 7% threshold needed to win
seats. Observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
praised some positive aspects of the vote, but judged it as falling short of a free and
fair race. They were critical of irregularities in counting ballots, a high vote hurdle
for parties to win seats, the appointment of nine deputies, and no provision for
candidates who were not party-affiliated to run. One Russian pundit observed that
an ever-dwindling number of parties have won seats in legislative elections since
Kazakhstan gained independence, and that now only the presidential party holds
seats. On the other hand, U.S. analyst Ariel Cohen hailed “a relatively clean election
that demonstrates high popular support.” 1
Historical Background
Central Asia consists of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and
Uzbekistan; it borders Russia, China, the Middle East, and South Asia. The major
peoples of all but Tajikistan speak Turkic languages (the Tajiks speak an Iranian
language); and most are Sunni Muslims (some Tajiks are Shiia Muslims). Most are
closely related historically and culturally. By the late 19th century, Russian tsars had
conquered the last independent khanates and nomadic lands of Central Asia. By the
early 1920s, Soviet power had been imposed; by 1936, five “Soviet Socialist
Republics” had been created. Upon the collapse of the Soviet Union in December
1991, they gained independence. 2
1 OSCE. Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. International Election
Observation Mission: Parliamentary Election, Republic of Kazakhstan, Statement of
Preliminary Findings and Conclusions, August 19, 2007; Open Source Center. Central
Eurasia: Daily Report (hereafter CEDR), August 22, 2007, Doc. No. CEP-950376; Ariel
Cohen, “Kazakh Vote: A Step Forward,” Washington Times, August 21, 2007.
2 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,
all by Jim Nichol.

---

CRS-2
Central Asia: Basic Facts
Total Area: 1.6 million sq. mi., larger than India; Kazakhstan: 1.1 m. sq. mi.; Kyrgyzstan: 77,000
sq. mi.; Tajikistan: 55,800 sq. mi.; Turkmenistan: 190,000 sq. mi.; Uzbekistan: 174,500 sq. mi.
Total Population: 60.6 million, slightly less than France; Kazakhstan: 15.3 m.; Kyrgyzstan: 5.3 m.;
Tajikistan: 7.1 m.; Turkmenistan: 5.1 m.; Uzbekistan: 27.8 m. (2006 est., CIA World Factbook).
Total Gross Domestic Product: $258.5 billion in 2006; per capita GDP is about $4,300, but there
are large income disparities. Kazakhstan: $138.7 b.; Kyrgyzstan: $10.5 b.; Tajikistan: $9.4 b.;
Turkmenistan: $45.1 b.; Uzbekistan: $54.8 b. (CIA Factbook, purchasing power parity).
Overview of U.S. Policy Concerns
After the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, then-President George
H.W. Bush sent the “FREEDOM Support Act” (FSA) 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 (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.
U.S. policymakers and others hold various views on the types and levels of U.S.
involvement in the region. Some have argued that ties with “energy behemoth”
Kazakhstan are crucial to U.S. interests.3 At least until recently, others have argued
that Uzbekistan is the “linchpin” of the region (it is the most populous regional state
and is centrally located, shaping the range and scope of regional cooperation) and
should receive the most U.S. attention. In general, however, U.S. aid and investment
have been viewed as strengthening the independence of the Central Asian states and
forestalling Russian, Chinese, Iranian, or other efforts to subvert them. Such
advocates have argued that political turmoil and the growth of terrorist enclaves in
Central Asia could produce spillover effects both in nearby states, including U.S.
allies and friends such as Turkey, and worldwide. They also have argued that the
United States has a major interest in preventing terrorist regimes or groups from
illicitly acquiring Soviet-era technology for making weapons of mass destruction
(WMD). They have maintained 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 sole
superpower to influence democratization and respect for human rights. They have
stressed that such U.S. influence will help alleviate social tensions exploited by
Islamic extremist groups to gain adherents. They also have argued that for all these
reasons, the United States should maintain military access to the region even when
Afghanistan becomes more stable.
3 U.S. Department of State. Office of the Spokesman. Remarks: Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice At Eurasian National University, October 13, 2005. Perhaps indicative
of the boosted emphasis on U.S. interests in Kazakhstan, Secretary Rice argued that the
country has the potential to be the “engine for growth” in Central Asia. See also National
Committee on American Foreign Policy, Stability in Central Asia: Engaging Kazakhstan,
May 2005.

---

CRS-3
Some views of policymakers and academics who previously objected to a more
forward U.S. policy toward Central Asia appeared less salient after September 11,
2001, but aspects of these views could gain more credence if Afghanistan becomes
more stable. These observers argued that the United States historically had few
interests in this region and that developments there remained 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. At
least until the coup in Kyrgyzstan in March 2005 (see below, Democratization), these
observers argued that the United States should not try to foster democratization
among cultures they claimed are historically attuned to authoritarianism. Some
observers reject arguments that U.S. interests in anti-terrorism, non-proliferation,
regional cooperation, and trade outweigh concerns over democratization and human
rights, and urge reducing or cutting off most aid to repressive states.4 A few
observers point to instability in the region as a reason to eschew deeper U.S.
involvement such as military access that might needlessly place more U.S. personnel
and citizens in danger.
Appearing to indicate a more negative assessment of developmental prospects
in Central Asia, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Thomas Fingar,
testified to Congress in July 2007 that “there is no guarantee that elite and societal
turmoil across Central Asia would stay within the confines of existing autocratic
systems. In the worst, but not implausible case, central authority in one or more of
these states could be challenged, leading to potential for increased terrorist and
criminal activities.”5
Post-September 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 the promotion of security, domestic reforms, and
energy development. According to then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State B. Lynn
Pascoe in testimony in June 2002, the September 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.6 After September 11, 2001, all the Central
4 Congressional hearings recently have examined democratization and other U.S. interests
in Central Asia. U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Foreign Relations.
Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight. Is There a
Human Rights Double Standard? U.S. Policy Toward Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Uzbekistan,
June 14, 2007; U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Energy and
Democracy, July 23, 2007. At the former hearing, analyst Martha Olcott argued that a
higher level of U.S. engagement with Uzbekistan before the violence in the town of Andijon
(see below) and continued engagement after Andijon would better have served U.S. interests
in Uzbekistan.
5 U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Armed Services. Global Security
Assessment: Testimony by Deputy Director of National Intelligence Thomas Fingar, July
11, 2007.
6 U.S. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. Subcommittee on Central Asia and the
South Caucasus. The U.S. Role in Central Asia. Testimony of B. Lynn Pascoe, Deputy
(continued...)

---

CRS-4
Asian states soon offered overflight and other assistance to U.S.-led anti-terrorism
efforts in Afghanistan. The states were predisposed to welcome such operations.
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan had long supported the Afghan Northern Alliance’s
combat against the Taliban, and 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). In 2005, however, Uzbekistan
rescinded its basing agreement with the United States (see also below, Security).
The Tajikistani and Uzbekistani defense ministers warned in late June 2007 that
fighting was intensifying in Afghanistan, possibly posing a threat to bordering
Central Asia from terrorists entering from Afghanistan. A Kazakhstani analyst
warned that if the United States pulls out of Iraq, terrorists there might move to
Afghanistan, further destabilizing it. He called for greater Central Asian military
cooperation with the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization and the
China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organization to counter this possible scenario.7
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 coalition military operations in Iraq (Kazakhstan
joined later). Uzbekistan subsequently decided not to send troops to Iraq, but
Kazakhstan has deployed some two dozen troops to Iraq who are engaged in de-
mining and water purification. Recently, Central Asian populations reportedly have
raised increased concerns about the deaths of Muslim civilians in Iraq.
Fostering Pro-Western Orientations
The United States has encouraged the Central Asian states to become
responsible members of the international community, supporting integrative goals
through bilateral aid and through coordination with other aid donors. The stated
policy goal is to discourage radical anti-democratic regimes and terrorist groups from
gaining 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. Although 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 may not be anti-Western but may more
closely reflect some concerns of other Islamic states. Some Western organizational
ties with the region have suffered in recent years, in particular those of the OSCE,
which has been criticized by some Central Asian governments for advocating
democratization and respect for human rights.8
6 (...continued)
Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, June 27, 2002.
7 Open Source Center. Central Eurasia: Daily Report (hereafter CEDR), June 28, 2007,
Doc. Nos. CEP-358005 and CEP-950078.
8 See also CRS Report RL30294, Central Asia’s Security: Issues and Implications for U.S.
Interests, by Jim Nichol.

---

CRS-5
The State Department in 2006 included Central Asia in a revamped Bureau of
South and Central Asian Affairs. According to Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
of State Steven Mann, “institutions such as NATO and the OSCE will continue to
draw the nations of Central Asia closer to Europe and the United States,” but the
United States also will encourage the states to develop “new ties and synergies with
nations to the south,” such as Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan.9 Secretary Rice
emphasized these ties when she heralded Kazakhstan’s role as part of “a new Silk
Road, a great corridor of reform linking the provinces of northern Russia to the ports
of South Asia, the republics of Western Europe to the democracies of East Asia.”10
In May 2007, Defense Secretary Robert Gates urged Asian countries to provide
Central Asia with road and rail, telecommunications, and electricity generation and
distribution aid to link the region with Asia; to help it combat terrorism and narcotics
trafficking; to send technical advisors to ministries to promote political and economic
reforms; to offer more military trainers, peacekeepers, and advisors for defense
reforms; and to more actively integrate the regional states into “the Asian security
structure.”11 (See also below, Trade.)
The European Union (EU) has become more interested in Central Asia in recent
years as the region has become more of a security threat as an originator and transit
zone for drugs, weapons of mass destruction, refugees, and persons smuggled for
prostitution or labor. Russia’s cutoff of gas supplies to Ukraine in early 2006 also
bolstered EU interest in Central Asia as an alternative supplier of oil and gas. Such
interests contributed to the launch of a Strategy Paper for assistance for 2002-2006
and a follow-on for 2007-2013 (see below), and the EU’s appointment of a Special
Representative to the region. The EU has implemented Partnership and Cooperation
Agreements (PCAs, which set forth political, economic, and trade relations) with
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. The PCA with Tajikistan awaits
ratification by all member-states and the one with Turkmenistan has not been
finalized. An existing Interstate Oil and Gas Transport to Europe (INOGATE)
program was supplemented in 2004 and 2006 by a Baku Energy Initiative to diversify
energy supplies. One project involves the proposed Nabucco pipeline, which could
transport Caspian region gas to Austria.12
9 U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on International Relations. Subcommittee on
the Middle East and Central Asia. Assessing Energy and Security Issues in Central Asia.
Testimony of Steven Mann, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central
Asian Affairs, July 25, 2006.
10 Remarks at Eurasian National University, October 13, 2005. Some observers in Russia
maintain that the State Department is encouraging ties between South and Central Asia in
an effort to reduce Russia’s influence in Central Asia. CEDR, January 23, 2007, Doc. No.
CEP-436006.
11 U.S. Department of Defense. Department of Defense Documents. International Institute
for Strategic Studies - Remarks as Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates,
Singapore, June 1, 2007.
12 For details, see CRS Report RL33636, The European Union’s Energy Security
Challenges, by Paul Belkin. See also European Union. “Ferrero-Waldner to Attend
EU-Central Asia Ministerial Troika 27/28 March,” Press Release, March 27, 2007; “The
EU and the Countries of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea Regions Agree on a Common
(continued...)

---

CRS-6
In June 2007, the EU approved a new “Central Asian strategy” for enhanced aid
and relations for 2007-2013. It calls for establishing offices in each regional state
and a “substantial increase” in assistance to $1 billion over the next five years. The
strategy argues that the EU ties with the region need to be enhanced because EU
enlargement and EU relations with the South Caucasus and Black Sea states bring
it to Central Asia’s borders. The strategy also stresses that “the dependency of the
EU on external energy sources and the need for a diversified energy supply policy in
order to increase energy security open further perspectives for cooperation between
the EU and Central Asia,” and that the “EU will conduct an enhanced regular energy
dialogue” with the states.13 (See also below, Oil and Natural Gas Resources.)
Russia’s Role
During most of the 1990s, U.S. administrations generally viewed a
democratizing Russia as serving as a role model in Central Asia. Despite growing
authoritarian tendencies in Russia since Vladimir Putin became its president in 2000,
the Bush Administration has emphasized that Russia’s counter-terrorism efforts in
the region broadly support U.S. interests. At the same time, the United States long
has stressed to Russia that it should not seek to dominate the region or exclude
Western and other involvement. Virtually all U.S. analysts agree that Russia’s
actions should be monitored to ensure that the independence of the Central Asian
states is not threatened.
Soon after the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001,
Russia acquiesced to increased U.S. and coalition presence in the region for
operations against Al Qaeda and its supporters in Afghanistan. Besides Russia’s own
concerns about Islamic extremism in Afghanistan and Central Asia, it was interested
in boosting its economic and other ties to the West and regaining some influence in
Afghanistan. More recently, however, Russia has appeared to step up efforts to
counter U.S. influence in Central Asia by advocating that the states increase
economic and strategic ties with Russia and limit such ties with the United States.
Such a stance appears paradoxical to some observers, since Russia (and China)
benefit from anti-terrorism operations carried out by U.S. (and now NATO) forces
in Afghanistan.
During the 1990s, Russia’s economic decline and demands by Central Asia
caused it to reduce its security presence, a trend that President Putin has appeared
to retard or reverse. In 1999, Russian border guards were largely phased out in
Kyrgyzstan, the last Russian military advisors left Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan
withdrew from the Collective Security Treaty (CST; see below) of the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), in part because the treaty members
failed to help Uzbekistan meet the growing Taliban threat in Afghanistan, according
to Uzbek President Islam Karimov. However, Russia has appeared determined to
12 (...continued)
Energy Strategy,” Press Release, November 30, 2006.
13 Council of the European Union. Presidency Conclusions, 11177/07, June 23, 2007, p. 12;
The Permanent Representatives Committee. The EU and Central Asia: Strategy for a New
Partnership, 10113/07, May 31, 2007.

---

CRS-7
maintain a military presence in Tajikistan. It long retained about 14,500 Federal
Border Guards in Tajikistan, most of whom were Tajik conscripts, and 7,800 Russian
troops of the 201st motorized rifle division.14
Russia’s efforts to formalize a basing agreement with Tajikistan dragged on for
years, as Tajikistan endeavored to maximize rents and assert its sovereignty. In
October 2004, the basing agreement was signed, formalizing Russia’s largest military
presence abroad, besides its Black Sea Fleet. At the same time, Tajikistan demanded
full control over border policing. Russia announced in June 2005 that it had handed
over the last guard-house along the Afghan-Tajik border to Tajik troops. Reportedly,
350 Russian “advisory” border troops remain. Tajik President Emomali Rahmonov
(or Rahmon) and others emphasize that growing drug production and trafficking from
Afghanistan pose increasing challenges.15
In a seeming shift toward a more activist role in Central Asia, in April 2000,
Russia called for the members of the CST to approve the creation of rapid reaction
forces to combat terrorism and hinted that such forces might launch pre-emptive
strikes on Afghan terrorist bases. These hints elicited U.S. calls for Russia to
exercise restraint and consult the U.N. Presidents Clinton and Putin agreed in 2000
to set up a working group to examine Afghan-related terrorism (this working group
now examines global terrorism issues). CST members agreed in 2001 to set up the
Central Asian rapid reaction force headquartered in Kyrgyzstan, with Russia’s troops
in Tajikistan comprising most of the force. CIS members in 2001 also approved
setting up an Anti-Terrorism Center (ATC) in Moscow, with a branch in Kyrgyzstan,
giving Russia influence over regional intelligence gathering.
Perhaps to counteract the U.S.-led military coalition presence in Kyrgyzstan
established after the September 11, 2001, attacks (see below), Russia in September
2003 signed a 15-year military basing accord with Kyrgyzstan providing access to the
Kant airfield, near Kyrgyzstan’s capital of Bishkek. The nearly two dozen Russian
aircraft and several hundred troops at the base also serve as part of the Central Asian
rapid reaction force. The base is a few miles from the U.S.-led coalition’s airbase.
Besides its military presence in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the Putin government has
also asserted its maritime dominance in the Caspian Sea. Russia’s Caspian Sea
Flotilla has been bolstered by troops and equipment.16
14 The Military Balance 2005-2006. London: International Institute of Strategic Studies,
2005.
15 U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Afghanistan Opium Survey 2007, August
2007. UNODC warns that opium production in 2007 has set a record and that Afghanistan
is now the source of 93% of the world’s opiates. UNODC has estimated that about one-fifth
of Afghan-produced morphine and heroin transit Central Asia. For another assessment, see
U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on International Relations. Subcommittee on
the Middle East and Central Asia. U.S. Policy in Central Asia: Balancing Priorities.
Testimony of Richard A. Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian
Affairs, April 26, 2006. Of the tiny percentage of Afghan drugs that reach U.S. consumers,
most do not appear to be smuggled through Central Asia.
16 In September 2006, a new 500-ton gunboat was transferred to the Caspian Flotilla that
(continued...)

---

CRS-8
Taking advantage of Uzbekistan’s souring relations with many Western
countries (see below), Russia signed a Treaty on Allied Relations with Uzbekistan
in November 2005 that calls for mutual defense consultations in the event of a threat
to either party (similar to language in the CST). Uzbekistan re-joined the CST in
June 2006, consolidating its strategic security ties with Russia. The member-states
of the CST agreed in June 2006 that basing agreements by any member with a third
party had to be approved by all members, in effect providing supreme veto power to
Russia over future basing arrangements.
Pointing to the deterioration of U.S.-Uzbek ties, many observers suggest that the
appreciative attitude of Central Asian states toward the United States — for their
added security accomplished through U.S.-led actions in Afghanistan — has declined
over time. Reasons may include perceptions that the United States has not provided
adequate security or economic assistance and growing concerns among the
authoritarian leaders that the United States advocates democratic “revolutions” to
replace them. Also, Russia is pledging security support to the states to get them to
forget their pre-September 11, 2001, dissatisfaction with its support. Russia also
encourages the leaders to believe that the United States backs democratic
“revolutions” to replace them.
Russia’s economic interests in Central Asia are being reasserted as its economy
improves and may constitute its most effective lever of influence. Russia seeks to
counter Western business and gain substantial influence over energy resources
through participation in joint ventures and by insisting that pipelines cross Russian
territory. After an Energy Cooperation Statement was signed at the May 2002 U.S.-
Russia summit, it appeared that Russia would accept a Western role in the Caspian
region, including construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline.
Subsequently, however, Russian officials have urged the Central Asian states to rely
on Russian-controlled export routes. Russia’s Gazprom gas firm has used this
control to pay the countries much less than the price it charges European customers
for the gas (see below, Energy Resources).
Obstacles to Peace and Independence:
Regional Tensions and Conflicts
The legacies of co-mingled ethnic groups, convoluted borders, and emerging
national identities pose challenges to stability in all the Central Asian states.
Emerging national identities accentuate clan, family, regional, and Islamic self-
identifications. Central Asia’s convoluted borders fail to accurately reflect ethnic
distributions and are hard to police, hence contributing to regional tensions. 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
16 (...continued)
includes a 100-millimeter cannon, a side cannon, submachine guns, a six-barrel gun and a
Grad missile launch system. ITAR-TASS, September 1, 2006.

---

CRS-9
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 is shared by Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. The
central governments have struggled to gain control over administrative subunits.
Most observers agree that the term “Central Asia” currently denotes a geographic
area more than a region of shared identities and aspirations, although it is clear that
the land-locked, poverty-stricken, and sparsely-populated region will need more
integration in order to develop.
Regional cooperation remains stymied by tensions among the states. Such
tensions continue to exist despite the membership of the states in various cooperation
groups such as the CST Organization, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO), and NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PFP). The CST was signed by Russia,
Belarus, the South Caucasus countries, and the Central Asian states (except
Turkmenistan) in May 1992 and called for military cooperation and joint
consultations in the event of security threats to any member. At the time to renew the
treaty in 1999, Uzbekistan, Georgia, and Azerbaijan formally withdrew. The
remaining members formed the CST Organization (CSTO) in late 2002, and a
secretariat opened in Moscow at the beginning of 2004. Through the CSTO, Russia
has attempted to involve the members in joint support for the Central Asian rapid
reaction forces and joint efforts to combat international terrorism and drug
trafficking.17
In 1996, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan 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, and in 2003 the SCO
Regional Anti-Terrorism Structure (RATS) was set up there. Annual military
exercises have become a primary means of cooperation, with the most recent —
involving some 5,000 troops — taking place in August 2007 in southern Russia and
northwestern China.
The 1992-1997 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
power. 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. 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 Rahmon and the late
17 Roger N McDermott, “Collective Security Group Reinvents Itself in a New World,”
Eurasia Insight, August 28, 2002.

---

CRS-10
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. The United States has pledged to help Tajikistan rebuild. Some observers
point to events in the city of Andijon in Uzbekistan (see below) as indicating that
conflicts similar to the Tajik civil war could engulf other regional states where large
numbers of people are disenfranchised and poverty-stricken.
The Incursions into Kyrgyzstan
Several hundred Islamic extremists and others first invaded Kyrgyzstan in July-
August 1999. Jama Namanganiy, the co-leader of the Islamic Movement of
Uzbekistan (IMU; see below), 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.18 With Uzbek and Kazakh air
and other support, Kyrgyz forces forced the guerrillas out in October 1999. 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. The IMU did not
invade the region in the summer before September 11, 2001, in part because bin
Laden had secured its aid for a Taliban offensive against the Afghan Northern
Alliance.
About a dozen alleged IMU members invaded from Tajikistan in May 2006 but
soon were defeated (some escaped). After this, the Kyrgyz defense minister claimed
that the IMU, HT, and other such groups increasingly menaced national security.
The 1999 and 2004 Attacks in Uzbekistan
A series of explosions in Tashkent in February 1999 were among early signs
that the Uzbek government was vulnerable to terrorism. By various reports, the
explosions killed 16 to 28 and wounded 100 to 351 people. The aftermath involved
wide-scale arrests of political dissidents and others deemed by some observers as
unlikely conspirators. Karimov in April 1999 accused Mohammad Solikh (former
Uzbek presidential candidate and head of the banned Erk Party) of masterminding
what he termed an assassination plot, along with Tohir Yuldashev (co-leader of the
IMU) and the Taliban. The first trial of 22 suspects in June resulted in six receiving
death sentences. The suspects said in court that they received terrorist training in
Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, and Russia and were led by Solikh, Yuldashev and
Namanganiy. In 2000, Yuldashev and Namanganiy received death sentences in
absentia, and Solikh received a 15.5 year prison sentence. Solikh denied membership
in IMU, and he and Yuldashev denied involvement in the bombings.
On March 28 through April 1, 2004, a series of bombings and armed attacks
were launched in Uzbekistan, reportedly killing 47. An obscure Islamic Jihad Group
18 According to Zeyno Baran, S. Frederick Starr, and Svante Cornell, the incursions of the
IMU into Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan in 1999 and 2000 were largely driven by efforts to
secure drug trafficking routes. Islamic Radicalism in Central Asia and the Caucasus:
Implications for the EU, Silk Road Paper, July 2006.

---

CRS-11
of Uzbekistan (IJG; Jama’at al-Jihad al-Islami, a breakaway part of the IMU) claimed
responsibility. In subsequent trials, the alleged attackers were accused of being
members of IJG or of Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT; an Islamic fundamentalist movement
ostensibly pledged to peace but banned in Uzbekistan) and of attempting to
overthrow the government. Some defendants testified that they were trained by
Arabs and others at camps in Kazakhstan and Pakistan. They testified that IMU
member Najmiddin Jalolov (convicted in absentia in 2000) was the leader of IJG, and
linked him to Taliban head Mohammad Omar, Uighur extremist Abu Mohammad,
and Osama bin Laden. On July 30, 2004, explosions occurred at the U.S. and Israeli
embassies and the Uzbek Prosecutor-General’s Office in Tashkent. The IMU and
IJG claimed responsibility and stated that the bombings were aimed against Uzbek
and other “apostate” governments. A Kazakh security official in late 2004
announced the apprehension of several IJG members. He alleged that the IJG had
ties to Al Qaeda; had other cells in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Russia; and was
planning assassinations.19
In September 2000, the State Department designated the IMU as a Foreign
Terrorist Organization, stating that the IMU, aided by Afghanistan’s Taliban and by
Osama bin Laden, 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,” the State Department warned, and it linked the IMU to bombings and
attacks on Uzbekistan in 1999-2000. IMU forces assisting the Taliban and Al Qaeda
suffered major losses during coalition actions in Afghanistan, and Namanganiy was
probably killed.20 Former CIA Director Porter Goss testified in March 2005 that IJG
“has become a more virulent threat to U.S. interests and local governments.”21 In
May 2005, the State Department designated IJG as a global terrorist group, and in
June, the U.N. Security Council added IJG to its terrorism list.22 Some authorities
in Central Asia have suggested that IMU/IJG activities are increasing. Pakistani
media reported in March-April 2007, however, that dozens of IMU/IJG members had
been killed in northern Pakistan when local tribes turned against them, perhaps
seriously affecting their strength.
The 2005 Violence in Andijon, Uzbekistan
Dozens or perhaps hundreds of civilians were killed or wounded on May 13,
2005, after Uzbek troops fired on demonstrators in the eastern town of Andijon. The
protestors had gathered to demand the end of a trial of local businessmen charged
19 See also CRS Report RS21818, The 2004 Attacks in Uzbekistan: Context and Implications
for U.S. Interests, by Jim Nichol.
20 U.S. Department of State. Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003, April 2004.
21 U.S. Senate. Committee on Armed Services. Testimony of the Director of Central
Intelligence, The Honorable Porter J. Goss, March 17, 2005.
22 U.S. Department of State. Press Statement: U.S. Department of State Designates the
Islamic Jihad Group Under Executive Order 13224, May 26, 2005; U.N. Security Council.
The Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee. Press Release: Security Council
Committee Adds One Entity to Al-Qaida Section of Consolidated List, SC/8405, June 3,
2005.

---

CRS-12
with belonging to an Islamic terrorist group. The night before, a group stormed a
prison where those on trial were held and released hundreds of inmates.23 Many
freed inmates then joined others in storming government buildings. President
Karimov flew to the city to direct operations, and reportedly had restored order by
late on May 13.24 On July 29, 439 people who had fled from Uzbekistan to
Kyrgyzstan were airlifted to Romania for resettlement processing, after the United
States and others raised concerns that they might be tortured if returned to
Uzbekistan.25
In November 2005, the EU Council approved a visa ban on twelve Uzbek
officials it stated were “directly responsible for the indiscriminate and
disproportionate use of force in Andijon and for the obstruction of an independent
inquiry.” The Council also embargoed exports of “arms, military equipment, and
other equipment that might be used for internal repression.”26 The EU Council in
November 2006 permitted some bilateral consultations to help Uzbekistan comply
“with the principles of respect for human rights, the rule of law, and fundamental
freedoms.” The EU Council most recently revisited the sanctions in May 2007 and
decided to leave them in place.27
The United States and others in the international community repeatedly have
called for an international inquiry into events in Andijon, which the Uzbek
government has rejected as violating its sovereignty. Uzbek authorities have argued
that organized terrorists carried out the attack in Andijon and that they were backed
by Western and other outside countries and interests that intended to overthrow the
Uzbek government and take over the country and its resources.
23 There is a great deal of controversy about whether this group contained foreign-trained
terrorists or was composed mainly of the friends and families of the accused. See U.S.
Congress. Commission on Security and Cooperation In Europe. Briefing: The Uzbekistan
Crisis. Testimony of Galima Bukharbayeva, Correspondent. Institute for War and Peace
Reporting, June 29, 2005. For a contrasting assessment, see Shirin Akiner, Violence in
Andijon, 13 May 2005: An Independent Assessment, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, July
2005; and AbduMannob Polat, Reassessing Andijan: The Road to Restoring U.S.-Uzbek
Relations, Jamestown Foundation, June 2007.
24 Analyst Adeeb Khalid draws a parallel between the Uzbek government’s actions at
Andijon and at a large student demonstration in Tashkent in January 1992. In the latter case,
Karimov allegedly ordered troops to fire on the marchers, resulting in up to six deaths and
two dozen or more injuries. Islam After Communism (Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press, 2007), p. 155. See also Reuters, January 17, 1992.
25 See also CRS Report RS22161, Unrest in Andijon, Uzbekistan: Context and Implications,
by Jim Nichol.
26 Council of the European Union. Uzbekistan: Council Adopts Restrictive Measures, Press
Release 14392/05, November 14, 2005. U.S. officials argued that the United States already
had been limiting military assistance — at congressional request — because of human rights
abuses.
27 Council of the European Union. 2800th General Affairs Council Meeting. Press Release,
9471/1/07 Rev.1, May 14-15, 2007.

---

CRS-13
At the first major trial of fifteen alleged perpetrators of the Andijon unrest in
late 2005, the accused all confessed and asked for death penalties. They testified that
the U.S. and Kyrgyz governments helped finance and support violence aimed at
overthrowing the government, and that international media colluded with local
human rights groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in this effort. The
U.S. and Kyrgyz governments denied such involvement, and many observers
criticized the trial as appearing stage-managed. Reportedly, 100 or more individuals
have been arrested and sentenced, including some Uzbek opposition party members
and media and NGO representatives. Partly in response, Congress has amplified
calls for conditioning aid to Uzbekistan on its democracy and human rights record
(see below, Legislation).28
Since the unrest in Andijon, Uzbekistan has closed down over 200 NGOs, many
of them U.S.-based or U.S.-supported, on the grounds that they are involved in illegal
activities. Among the few recent U.S.-Uzbek contacts, Deputy Assistant Secretary
of State Evan Feigenbaum visited Uzbekistan in March 2007, and stated afterward
that he hoped that a “difficult” period in bilateral relations was ending.29
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.
Particularly since September 11, 2001, the United States has attempted to harmonize
its concerns about democratization and human rights in the region with its interests
in regional support for the Global War on Terrorism. According to some allegations,
the Administration may have sent suspected terrorists in its custody to Uzbekistan for
questioning, a process termed “extraordinary rendition.”30 Although not verifying
such transfers specifically to Uzbekistan, the Administration stated that, under the
rendition policy, it received diplomatic assurances that transferees would not be
tortured.
Several of the Central Asian leaders have declared that they are committed to
democratization. Despite such pledges, the states have made little progress,
28 OSCE. Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). Report from the
OSCE/ODIHR Trial Monitoring in Uzbekistan, April 21, 2006; Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Republic of Uzbekistan. Comments on the Report Prepared by the OSCE ODIHR, April 19,
2006.
29 U.S. Department of State. Congressional Presentation for Foreign Operations for
FY2008; CEDR, March 8, 2007, Doc. No. CEP-950059.
30 The New Yorker, February 14, 2005; New York Times, May 1, 2005; New York Times,
December 31, 2005; Representative Edward Markey, Congressional Record, December 13,
2005, p. H11337; European Parliament. Temporary Committee on the Alleged Use of
European Countries by the CIA for the Transport And Illegal Detention of Prisoners, Draft
Interim Report, 2006/2027(INI), April 24, 2006; and On the Testimony by Craig Murray,
Former British Ambassador, Working Document No. 5, June 1, 2006.

---

CRS-14
according to the State Department.31 During Nazarbayev’s 1994 U.S. visit, he and
then-President Clinton signed a Charter on Democratic Partnership that recognized
Kazakhstan’s commitments to the rule of law, respect for human rights, and
economic reform. During his December 2001 and September 2006 visits,
Nazarbayev repeated these pledges in joint statements with President Bush. In March
2002, a U.S.-Uzbek Strategic Partnership Declaration was signed pledging
Uzbekistan to “intensify the democratic transformation” and improve freedom of the
press. During his December 2002 U.S. visit, Tajikistan’s President Rahmon pledged
to “expand fundamental freedoms and human rights.”
Until recently, almost all the leaders in Central Asia had been in place since
before the breakup of the Soviet Union (the exception was the leader of Tajikistan,
who had been ousted in the early 1990s during a civil war). These leaders long held
onto power by orchestrating extensions of their terms, holding suspect elections,
eliminating possible contenders, and providing emoluments to supporters and
relatives. After this long period of leadership stability, President Akayev of
Kyrgyzstan was toppled in a coup in 2005 (see below), and President Niyazov of
Turkmenistan died in late 2006, marking the passing of three out of five Soviet-era
regional leaders from the scene. Kazakhstan’s president was re-elected in 2005 (see
below). A presidential election is scheduled for December 2007 in Uzbekistan.
Possible scenarios of political futures in Central Asia have ranged from
continued rule in most of the states by elite groups that became ensconced during the
Soviet era to violent transitions to Islamic fundamentalist rule. Relatively peaceful
and quick transitions to more or less democratic and Western-oriented political
systems have been considered less likely by many observers. While some observers
warn that Islamic extremism could increase dramatically in the region, others
discount the risk that the existing secular governments soon will be overthrown by
Islamic extremists.32
In the case of the three succession transitions so far, Tajikistan’s resulted in a
shift in the Soviet-era regional/clan elite configuration and some limited inclusion of
the Islamic Renaissance Party. Perhaps worrisome, Tajik President Rahmon has
written a “spiritual guide” reminiscent of the one penned by Turkmenistan’s late
authoritarian president, and has given orders on how citizens should live and dress.
It is perhaps too early to discern the outcome of transitions in Kyrgyzstan and
Turkmenistan, but Kyrgyzstan’s appears to involve power-sharing by Soviet-era
regional/clan elites and possibly, fitful democratization.33 In Turkmenistan, it
appears that Soviet-era elites have retained power. On March 30, 2007,
Turkmenistan’s Halk Maslahaty, the supreme legislative-executive body,
31 U.S. Department of State. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2006.
32 Analyst Adeeb Khalid argues that the elites and populations of the regional states still
hold many attitudes and follow many practices imposed during the Soviet period of rule.
This “Sovietism” makes it difficult for either Islamic extremism or democratization to make
headway, he suggests. Khalid, p. 193. For a perhaps more troubling view of the threat of
Islamic extremism, see above, Overview of U.S. Policy Concerns.
33 Mark Katz, “Revolutionary Change in Central Asia,” World Affairs, Spring 2006, pp. 157-
72.

---

CRS-15
unanimously elected President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow as its head, giving him
the last of three top posts held by his predecessor. He has ousted and imprisoned
several officials, including the powerful head of the presidential guard, who some
observers considered a potential rival.
The Coup in Kyrgyzstan. Demonstrations in Kyrgyzstan against a tainted
legislative election and economic distress resulted in President Akayev’s relatively
peaceful overthrow in March 2005. Some observers hailed this coup as the third so-
called “democratic revolution” in Eurasia, after those in Georgia and Ukraine, and
the first in Central Asia. They suggested that the country, because of its slightly
wider scope of civil liberties compared to the rest of Central Asia, might lead the
region in democratic reforms. Other observers have cautioned that governmental
corruption, institutional weakness, and pro-Russian overtures could jeopardize
Kyrgyzstan’s independence.34 In late October 2006, U.S. media reported that the
U.S. FBI allegedly had determined that former President Akayev and his family had
skimmed off Kyrgyz state assets, including U.S. payments for use of the Manas
airbase.
In November and December 2006, conflict between the executive and legislative
branches over the balance of powers resulted in the passage of successive
constitutions, with President Bakiyev appearing to win back some presidential
powers (for background, see CRS Report RL32864, Coup in Kyrgyzstan:
Developments and Implications; and CRS Report RS22546, Kyrgyzstan’s
Constitutional Crisis, both by Jim Nichol).
Ongoing political instability in Kyrgyzstan was marked by the resignation of
Prime Minister Azim Isabekov on March 29, 2006, after a tenure of only a few
weeks. President Bakiyev nominated opposition legislator Almaz Atambayev for the
post, who Bakiyev hoped could form a coalition party government to ease political
tensions. Atambayev was confirmed quickly by the legislature, but opposition
politicians refused to join his government. Former Prime Minister and oppositionist
Feliks Kulov called for massive street demonstrations beginning on April 9 to push
for the president to resign, on the grounds that the administration was highly corrupt
and that nepotism had compromised governmental efficiency. Bakiyev appeared to
receive at least some public support when he used force to disperse these protesters
after two weeks of unrest. Opposition leaders have appeared somewhat chastened
by the use of force to disperse the protesters and more willing to work with the
Bakiyev government, at least temporarily.
34 Analyst Matthew Fuhrmann, who was in Kyrgyzstan during the coup, states that it
fundamentally was an action led by citizens who mobilized to replace what they viewed as
a corrupt and undemocratic regime, and was not merely a clan-based or criminal-led effort.
“A Tale of Two Social Capitals: Revolutionary Collective Action in Kyrgyzstan,” Problems
of Post-Communism, November/December 2006, pp. 16-29. Other observers suggest that
the coup was more a clan-based shift of power than a spontaneous popular uprising.
Kathleen Collins, “The Logic of Clan Politics: Evidence from the Central Asian
Trajectories,” World Politics, January 2004, pp. 224-261; S. Frederick Starr, Clans,
Authoritarian Rulers, and Parliaments in Central Asia, Silk Road Paper, June 2006.

---

CRS-16
Turkmanbashi’s Death and Succession. President Niyazov died on
December 21, 2006, at age 66, ostensibly from a heart attack. The morning of his
death, the government announced that deputy prime minister and health minister
Gurbanguly Malikgulyyewic Berdimuhamedow would serve as acting president. The
Halk Maslahaty (HM or People’s Council, a supreme legislative-executive-regional
conclave) convened on December 26 and changed the constitution to make legitimate
Berdimuhamedow’s position as acting president. It quickly approved an electoral
law and announced that the next presidential election would be held on February 11,
2007.
The HM designated six candidates for the presidential election, one from each
region, all of whom were government officials and members of the ruling Democratic
Party. The ruling Democratic Party endorsed Berdimuhamedow as its candidate,
thereby seemingly anointing him as Niyazov’s heir-apparent. Reportedly, nearly 99%
of 2.6 million voters turned out and 89.23% endorsed acting president
Berdimuhamedow. A needs assessment mission from the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) visited Turkmenistan during the campaign. It
praised some provisions of a new presidential election law, such as those permitting
multiple candidacies and access by electoral observers, but criticized others,
including those permitting only citizens approved by the legislature and who had
served as state officials to run. A small delegation from the OSCE allegedly was not
allowed to view the election vote-counting and one member reportedly termed the
vote a “play” rather than “real” election. According to the U.S. State Department, the
election “represent[ed] a modest step toward political electoral change that could
help create the conditions in the future for a free, fair, open and truly competitive
elections.”35 Berdimuhamedow has not announced any fundamental policy changes.
Recent Developments in Kazakhstan. Incumbent Kazakh President
Nazarbayev won another term with 91% of the vote in a five-man race on December
4, 2005. Many observers credited economic growth in the country and promises of
increased wages and pensions as bolstering his popularity. He campaigned widely
and pledged democratic reforms and poverty relief. Observers from the OSCE, the
Council of Europe (COE), and the European Parliament assessed the election as
progressive but still falling short of a free and fair race. Problems included
restrictions on campaigning and harassment of opposition candidates.36 Then-
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs Daniel Fried averred
that “in the case of ... countries whose elections were not free and fair but not a
travesty — perhaps Kazakhstan is in that category — we need to be very clear about
what it is we want, which is democracy” and that the United States should continue
engagement with such governments “as long as they are moving in roughly the right
direction.”37
35 CEDR, February 12, 2007, Doc. No. CEP-950160. U.S. Department of State. Daily Press
Briefing, February 15, 2007.
36 OSCE. ODIHR. Election Observation Mission. Republic of Kazakhstan Presidential
Election 4 December 2005: Final Report, February 21, 2006.
37 “Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Addresses American Enterprise
Institute,” US Fed News, December 14, 2005.

---

CRS-17
A meeting of the Ministerial Council of the OSCE on December 5, 2006,
postponed a decision on Kazakhstan’s bid to preside over the organization in 2009.
U.S. officials reportedly urged Kazakhstan to make more progress in human rights
reforms before a final decision is made.
President Nazarbayev proposed changes to the constitution on May 17, 2007,
that he claimed would increase legislative power and boost democratization. He
explained that after Kazakhstan gained independence, “the need to build Kazakh
statehood and a market economy from scratch demanded [that] I assume all the
responsibility for what happens in the country.... But today, when the process of
modernization of the country is irreversible ... the time has come [for] a new system
of checks and balances.” The legislature approved the changes the next day.
The changes include increasing the number of deputies in the Majilis and
Senate, permitting the president to be active in a political party, and decreasing the
president’s term in office from seven to five years (reversing a 1998 change from five
to seven years). One change requires a two-thirds vote in each legislative chamber
to override presidential alterations to approved bills. Another provision specifies that
nine Majilis deputies are appointed by the People's Assembly, which is mentioned
in the constitution for the first time. An implementing Constitutional Act on
Elections approved on June 19, 2007, provides for electing the other 98 Majilis
deputies by party lists.
Some critics consider that many of the changes are superficially reformist and
perhaps aimed at convincing the OSCE that Kazakhstan is democratizing and should
be granted its request to chair the OSCE in 2009. Other observers praise some of the
changes as progressive if fully implemented, such as the requirement for a court order
in case of detention or arrest. Perhaps indicating another reason for the changes, a
legislative “initiative” excluded Nazarbayev from term limits. Visiting U.S.
Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher met with Kazakhstani officials on June
5, 2007, and stated that “these constitutional amendments go in the right direction.
The overall effect over the long term could be to strengthen political parties,
strengthen the power of parliament. There have been concerns about the lifting of
term limits on the president, but it remains to be seen how that will work out in the
longer term. I think our overall view would be this is a step forward. It's a good
legal framework. It points the way to a stable, democratic system.”38
Similar to the events of late 1993, deputies in Kazakhstan’s Majilis (the lower
legislative chamber) on June 19, 2007, ostensibly requested that President Nursultan
Nazarbayev cut short their terms and hold early elections. He acceded to the request
the next day and the election was scheduled for August 18, 2007. As per
constitutional amendments and election law changes, the size of the Majilis increased
from 77 to 107 members. Ninety-eight members are elected by party lists and nine
by the People’s Assembly (which is headed by the president). At the opening of the
headquarters for the main pro-government party, Nur-Otan (Fatherland’s Ray of
38 U.S. Embassy, Astana, Kazakhstan. Interview by Assistant Secretary for South and
Central Asian Affairs Richard A. Boucher with Aybek Aldabergenov of Era TV, June 6,
2007.

---

CRS-18
Light), on July 2, Nazarbayev appeared to endorse a predominant role for Nur-Otan
when he allegedly claimed (erroneously) that since World War II, Japan has
flourished under the one party rule of the Liberal Democrats. Seven parties were
registered for the August Majilis election, six of which are pro-government and one
of which is an opposition party. Local legislative elections also took place, but these
involved voting for individuals rather than party lists.
Recent Developments in Tajikistan. Five candidates ran in the
presidential election in Tajikistan held on November 6, 2006, including incumbent
President Rahmon. All the four “challengers” praised Rahmon and campaigned
little. The opposition Democratic and Social-Democratic Parties boycotted the race,
claiming it was undemocratic, and the Islamic Renaissance Party chose not to field
a candidate. Rahmon officially received 79.3% of 2.88 million votes with a nearly
91% turnout. According to OSCE and COE observers, the race was slightly
improved over the 1999 presidential election but “did not fully test democratic
electoral practices ... due to a lack of genuine choice and meaningful pluralism.” The
observers criticized the lack of meaningful debate by the candidates, improbable
turnout figures in some precincts, use of administrative resources, and non-
transparent vote-counting.39
Human Rights. The NGO Freedom House has included Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan among countries such as North Korea and Myanmar that have the lowest
possible ratings on political rights and civil liberties.40 Adherents to non-favored
faiths, missionaries, and pious Muslims face religious rights abuses in all the states.
Unfair elections increase political alienation and violence aimed against the regimes.
According to the State Department, religious freedom deteriorated in Uzbekistan
in 2005-2006, with increased repression against Christians and observant Muslims.41
As recommended by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
(USCIRF), Secretary Rice in November 2006 designated Uzbekistan a “country of
particular concern” (CPC), where severe human rights violations could lead to U.S.
sanctions. In June 2006, the State Department downgraded Uzbekistan to “Tier 3,”
for having problems as a source country for human trafficking that does not fully
comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not
making significant efforts to do so.42
In the case of religious freedom in Turkmenistan, the State Department
maintained that conditions there had improved somewhat in 2005-2006, because the
Turkmen Council for Religious Affairs (CRA) was more willing to assist minority
religious groups in dealing with the government, and authorities hosted a late 2005
39 OSCE. ODIHR. Presidential Election, Republic of Tajikistan — 6 November 2006:
Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions, November 7, 2006.
40 Freedom House. The Worst of the Worst: The World’s Most Repressive Societies,
September 6, 2006 and May 9, 2007.
41 U.S. Department of State. International Religious Freedom Report 2006, September 15,
2006.
42 U.S. Department of State. Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2006.

---

CRS-19
roundtable discussion to inform religious leaders on registration procedures. The
USCIRF in 2006 termed this State Department claim that religious freedom had
improved “disturbing” and “startling” and recommended — as it had since 2000 —
that Turkmenistan be designated a CPC, because the country “is among the most
repressive states in the world today and engages in systematic and egregious
violations of freedom of religion.” The USCIRF in May 2007 recommended that
Turkmenistan be designated a CPC, despite the change in leadership, because
reforms had not yet been implemented.43
Among U.N. actions, the General Assembly in December 2003 and November
2004 approved resolutions expressing “grave concern” about human rights abuses in
Turkmenistan and urging reforms. The U.N. Rapporteur on Torture in early 2003
completed a report that concluded that police and prison officials in Uzbekistan
“systematically” employed torture.44 In November 2005, the U.N. General
Assembly’s Third Committee approved resolutions critical of human rights violations
in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The resolution on Turkmenistan expressed “grave
concern” about political repression, media censorship, religious minority group
harassment, and detainee torture. The resolution on Uzbekistan expressed “grave
concern” about violence against civilians in Andijon and called on the government
to permit an international investigation. The Uzbek representative asserted that the
resolution contained no credible facts and ignored Uzbekistan’s right to defend its
constitutional order against terrorists.45
Security and Arms Control
The U.S.-led coalition’s overthrow of the Taliban and routing of Al Qaeda and
IMU terrorists in Afghanistan (termed Operation Enduring Freedom or OEF)
increased the security of Central Asia. According to then-Assistant Secretary of
43 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Annual Report, May 3, 2006, and
Annual Report, May 1, 2007. USCIRF first urged that Uzbekistan be designated a CPC in
its 2005 Annual Report. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom John
V. Hanford III on the Release of the State Department’s 2006 Designations of Countries of
Particular Concern for Severe Violations of Religious Freedom, November 13, 2006.
44 U.N. General Assembly. Resolution: Situation of Human Rights in Turkmenistan, 58/194,
December 22, 2003; Resolution: Situation of Human Rights in Turkmenistan, 59/206,
December 20, 2004. U.N. Economic and Social Council. Commission on Human Rights.
Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture, Theo van Boven. Report of the Special
Rapporteur Submitted in Accordance with Commission Resolution 2002/38. Addendum:
Mission to Uzbekistan, E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.2, annex, February 3, 2003. U.N. Special
Rapporteur on the Question of Torture, Manfred Nowak. Report by the Special Rapporteur.
Addendum: Follow-up to the Recommendations Made by the Special Rapporteur,
E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2, March 21, 2006.
45 U.N. General Assembly. Third Committee. Draft Resolution: Situation of Human Rights
in Turkmenistan, A/C.3/60/L.46, November 2, 2005; Draft Resolution: Situation of Human
Rights in Uzbekistan, A/C.3/60/L.51, November 2, 2005; Press Release: Third Committee
... Approves Text Expressing Deep Concern over Human Rights Situation in Uzbekistan,
GA/SHC/3843, November 22, 2005.

---

CRS-20
Defense J. D. 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.” Crouch averred 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.
Kyrgyzstan, Crouch related, became a “critical regional partner” in OEF, providing
basing for U.S. and coalition forces at Manas (in late 2006, these troops reportedly
numbered about 1,000). Uzbekistan provided a base for U.S. operations at Karshi-
Khanabad (K2; just before the pullout, U.S. troops reportedly numbered less than
900), a base for German units at Termez (in mid-2006, German troops reportedly
numbered about 300), and a land corridor to Afghanistan for humanitarian aid via the
Friendship Bridge at Termez. Tajikistan permitted use of its international airport in
Dushanbe for refueling (“gas-and-go”) and hosted a French force (there were
reportedly 370 troops there in early 2007). Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan provided
overflight and other support.46
To obtain Uzbekistan’s approval for basing, the 2002 U.S.-Uzbek Strategic
Partnership Declaration included a nonspecific security guarantee. The United States
affirmed 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 pledged to intensify military cooperation,
including “re-equipping the Armed Forces” of Uzbekistan, a pledge that appeared to
be repudiated by Uzbekistan following events in Andijon.
Although U.S. security assistance was boosted in the aftermath of 9/11, such aid
has lessened since then as a percentage of all such aid to Eurasia, particularly after
aid to Uzbekistan was cut in FY2004 and subsequent years (see below). Security and
law enforcement aid was $188 million in FY2002 (31% of all such aid to Eurasia),
$102 million (33%) in FY2003, $133 million (11.2%) in FY2004, $149 million in
FY2005 (11.3%), and $111 (7.6%) in FY2006. Of all budgeted assistance to Central
Asia over the period from FY1992-FY2006, security and law enforcement aid
accounted for a little over one-fifth. Security and law enforcement aid included
Foreign Military Financing (FMF), International Military Education and Training
(IMET), and Excess Defense Articles (EDA) programs and border security aid to
combat trafficking in drugs, humans, and WMD. To help counter burgeoning drug
trafficking from Afghanistan, the emergency supplemental for FY2005 (P.L. 109-13)
provided $242 million for Central Asia and Afghanistan, and the emergency
supplemental for FY2006 (P.L. 109-234) provided $150 million for Central Asia and
Afghanistan (of which about $30 million was recommended for Central Asia).
In addition to the aid reported by the Coordinator’s Office, the Defense
Department provides coalition support payments to Kyrgyzstan, including base lease
46 Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Subcommittee on Central Asia and the South
Caucasus. Statement of J.D. Crouch II, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Policy, June 27, 2002. Russia and India signed an agreement in January 2006 to
revamp a Soviet-era base at Farkhor, Tajikistan. India reportedly has deployed some
helicopters at the base. Xinhua General News Service, February 27, 2007; Eurasia Daily
Monitor, May 24, 2007.

---

CRS-21
payments and landing and overflight fees (overall authority and funding have been
provided in emergency supplemental appropriations for military operations and
maintenance). According to one 2005 report, the United States had paid a total of
$28 million in landing fees, parking fees, and airport fees; $114 million for fuel, and
$17 million to Kyrgyz contractors. Uzbekistan received a payment of $15.7 million
for use of K2 and associated services, and the Defense Department in September
2005 announced an intention to pay another $23 million. On October 5, 2005, an
amendment to Defense Appropriations for FY2006 (H.R. 2863) was approved in the
Senate to place a one-year hold on the payment. Despite this congressional concern,
the Defense Department transferred the payment in November 2005. The conferees
on H.R. 2863 later dropped the amendment (H.Rept. 109-360; P.L. 109-359).
U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) in 1999 became responsible for U.S.
military engagement in Central Asia. It cooperates with the European Command
(USEUCOM), on the Caspian Maritime Security Cooperation program (similar to the
former Caspian [Sea] Guard program). Gen. Bantz Craddock, Commander of
EUCOM, testified in 2007 that the Caspian Maritime Security Cooperation program
coordinates security assistance provided by U.S. agencies to “enhance the capabilities
of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan to prevent and, if needed, respond to terrorism, nuclear
proliferation, drug and other trafficking, and additional transnational threats.”47
Russia has appeared to counter U.S. maritime security aid by boosting the capabilities
of its Caspian Sea Flotilla and by urging the littoral states to coordinate their naval
activities with Russia’s.
All the Central Asian states except Tajikistan joined NATO’s PFP by mid-1994
(Tajikistan joined in 2002). Central Asian troops have participated in periodic PFP
(or “PFP-style”) exercises in the United States since 1995, and U.S. troops have
participated in exercises in Central Asia since 1997. A June 2004 NATO summit
communique pledged enhanced Alliance attention to the countries of the South
Caucasus and Central Asia. Uzbekistan sharply reduced its participation in PFP after
NATO raised concerns that Uzbek security forces had used excessive and
disproportionate force in Andijon. In contrast to Uzbekistan’s participation,
Kazakhstan’s progress in military reform enabled NATO in January 2006 to elevate
it to participation in an Individual Partnership Action Plan.
According to some reports, the Defense Department has been considering
possibly setting up long-term military facilities in Central Asia termed Cooperative
Security Locations (CSLs; they might contain pre-positioned equipment and be
managed by private contractors, and few if any U.S. military personnel may be
present). The Overseas Basing Commission in 2005 acknowledged that U.S. national
security might be enhanced by future CSLs in Central Asia but urged Congress to
47 Senate Armed Services Committee. Statement of General James L. Jones, USMC,
Commander, United States European Command, March 1, 2005; Statement of General
Bantz J. Craddock, Commander, United States European Command, May 17, 2007.
Caspian Sea Maritime Proliferation Prevention aid to Kazakhstan was $4 million in FY2005,
$5 million in FY2006, and $7 million in FY2007, and $8 million was requested for each of
FY2008 and FY2009. U.S. Department of Defense. Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
FY2008/FY2009 Budget Estimates: Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction, February 2007.

---

CRS-22
seek inter-agency answers to “what constitutes vital U.S. interests in the area that
would require long-term U.S. presence.”48
Closure of Karshi-Khanabad
On July 5, 2005, the presidents of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan
signed a declaration issued during a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO; see below, Regional Tensions) that stated that “as large-scale
military operations against terrorism have come to an end in Afghanistan, the SCO
member states maintain that the relevant parties to the anti-terrorist coalition should
set a deadline for the temporary use of ... infrastructure facilities of the SCO member
states and for their military presence in these countries.”49 Despite this declaration,
none of the Central Asian leaders immediately called for closing the coalition bases.
However, after the United States and others interceded so that refugees who fled
from Andijon to Kyrgyzstan could fly to Romania, Uzbekistan on July 29 demanded
that the United States vacate K2 within six months. On November 21, 2005, the
United States officially ceased operations to support Afghanistan at K2. Perhaps
indicative of the reversal of U.S. military-to-military and other ties, former pro-U.S.
defense minister Qodir Gulomov was convicted of treason and received seven years
in prison, later suspended. Many K2 activities shifted to the Manas airbase in
Kyrgyzstan.50 In early 2006, Kyrgyz President Bakiyev reportedly requested that
lease payments for use of the Manas airbase be increased to more than $200 million
per year and at the same time re-affirmed Russia’s free use of its nearby base.51
Some observers viewed the closure of K2 and souring U.S.-Uzbek relations as
setbacks to U.S. influence in the region and as gains for Russian and Chinese
influence. Others suggested that U.S. ties with other regional states provided
continuing influence and that U.S. criticism of human rights abuses might pay future
dividends among regional populations.52
48 Commission on Review of the Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States.
Interim Report, May 9, 2005.
49 CEDR, July 5, 2005, Doc. No. CPP-249.
50 According to a mid-2006 report, nine million pounds of fuel were being off-loaded and
4,000 tons of cargo and 13,500 people were being transported each month through Manas
to Afghanistan. “USAFE/CC Revisits Manas, Impressed with Improvements,” US Fed
News, July 10, 2006.
51 For background, see CRS Report RS22295, Uzbekistan’s Closure of the Airbase at
Karshi-Khanabad: Context and Implications, by Jim Nichol. Perhaps indicating Kyrgyz
pressure on Russia to compensate for use of the base, Russia in October 2006 pledged grant
military assistance to Kyrgyzstan. The Russian defense minister announced in June 2007
the transfer of $2 million in military equipment as compensation. ITAR-TASS, June 27,
2007; CEDR, June 29, 2007, Doc. No. CEP-380002.
52 On growing Chinese regional influence, see Michael Mihalka, “Counter-insurgency,
Counter-terrorism, State-Building and Security Cooperation in Central Asia,” The China and
Eurasia Forum Quarterly, May 2006.

---

CRS-23
On July 14, 2006, the United States and Kyrgyzstan issued a joint statement that
the two sides had resolved the issue of the continued U.S. use of airbase facilities at
Manas. Although not specifically mentioning U.S. basing payments, it was
announced that the United States would provide $150 million in “total assistance and
compensation over the next year,” subject to congressional approval (some reports
indicated that the “rent” portion of this amount would be $17-$20 million). Kyrgyz
Security Council Secretary Miroslav Niyazov and U.S. Deputy Assistant Defense
Secretary James MacDougall also signed a Protocol of Intentions affirming that the
United States would compensate the Kyrgyz government and businesses for goods,
services, and support of coalition operations. Some observers suggested that
increased terrorist activities in Afghanistan and a May 2006 terrorist incursion from
Tajikistan into Kyrgyzstan may have contributed to a Kyrgyz evaluation that the U.S.
coalition presence was still necessary.
Following the shooting death of a civilian by a U.S. serviceman at the U.S.-
leased Ganci airbase in Kyrgyzstan in December 2006, the Kyrgyz legislature called
for him to be handed over for prosecution by Kyrgyz courts, and the Kyrgyz
government requested that the soldier not leave Kyrgyzstan until the completion of
its investigation. According to U.S. officials, this investigation was completed and
the Kyrgyz government permitted the U.S. military in late March 2007 to send the
soldier home on rotation.53 Attempting to defuse domestic concerns that the soldier
was escaping justice, the Kyrgyz foreign minister reminded his countrymen that the
U.S.-Kyrgyz status-of-forces agreement signed in 2001 permitted U.S. authorities to
adjudicate the case. Nonetheless, Kyrgyz legislative committees in late May urged
altering or repudiating the agreement and the government reported that a commission
was deliberating on the future of the agreement. Kyrgyz Prime Minister Almazbek
Atambayev allegedly complained on May 24 that the agreement had been
“cunningly” drafted to make it hard to break. Visiting Kyrgyzstan on June 5, 2007,
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that “our use of Manas is in support of
a larger war on terror in which Kyrgyzstan is an ally of virtually every other nation
on earth.” He also reportedly emphasized that the adjudication provisions of the
agreement were in line with those of other basing accords signed by Kyrgyzstan,
referring to Kyrgyzstan’s accord with Russia for use of the Kant airbase.54
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, in part because of concerns that Iran is targeting these countries.
53 U.S. Embassy Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic. Press Statement: To the Jamestown
Foundation: Inaccurate Reporting on Kyrgyz-U.S. Relations, by Ambassador Marie
Yovanovitch and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Evan Feigenbaum, July 12, 2007.
54 CEDR, May 23, 2007, Doc. No. CEP-950228; June 5, 2007, Doc. No. CEP-950297; July
7, 2007, Doc. No. CEP-950103; Armed Forces Press Service, June 5, 2007. Kyrgyz media
reported that small demonstrations against the Ganci airbase on June 2 and July 7 contained
many pro-Moscow communist party members and ethnic Russians.

---

CRS-24
After the Soviet breakup, Kazakhstan was on paper a major nuclear weapons
power (in reality Russia controlled these weapons). In December 1993, the United
States and Kazakhstan signed a Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) umbrella
agreement for the “safe and secure” dismantling of 104 SS-18s, the destruction of
silos, and related purposes. All bombers and their air-launched cruise missiles were
removed by late February 1994 (except seven bombers destroyed with U.S. aid in
1998). 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. The
United States reported that 147 silos had been destroyed by September 1999. A U.S.-
Kazakh Nuclear Risk Reduction Center in Almaty was set up to facilitate verification
and compliance with arms control agreements to prevent the proliferation of WMD.
Besides the Kazakh nuclear weapons, there are active research reactors, uranium
mines, milling facilities, and dozens of radioactive tailing and waste dumps in
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Many of these reportedly
remain inadequately protected against theft. Kazakhstan is reported to possess
one-fourth of the world’s uranium reserves, and Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have
been among the world’s top producers of low enriched uranium. Kazakhstan had a
fast breeder reactor at Aktau that was the world’s only nuclear desalinization facility.
Shut down in 1999, it had nearly 300 metric tons of uranium and plutonium spent
fuel in storage pools (three tons of which were weapons-grade). In 1997 and 1999,
U.S.-Kazakh accords were signed on decommissioning the Aktau reactor.
CTR aid was used to facilitate transporting 600 kg of weapons-grade uranium
from Kazakhstan to the United States in 1994, 2,900 kg of up to 26% enriched
nuclear fuel from Aktau to Kazakhstan’s Ulba facility in 2001 (which Ulba
converted into less-enriched fuel), eleven kg of uranium in fuel rods from Uzbekistan
to Russia in 2004, and 63 kg of uranium from Uzbekistan to Russia in April 2006.
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan hosted major chemical and biological warfare
(CBW) facilities during the Soviet era. CTR and Energy Department (DOE) funds
have been used in Kazakhstan to dismantle a former anthrax production facility in
Stepnogorsk, to remove some strains to the United States, to secure two other BW
sites, and to retrain scientists. CTR funding was used to dismantle Uzbekistan’s
Nukus chemical weapons research facility. CTR aid also was used to eliminate
active anthrax spores at a former CBW test site on an island in the Aral Sea. These
latter two projects were completed in 2002. Other CTR aid helps keep former Uzbek
CBW scientists employed in peaceful research. Uzbekistan has continued to
cooperate with DOD and DOE — even after it restricted other ties with the United
States in 2005 — to receive portal and hand-held radiation monitoring equipment and
training.
The FY2003 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 107-314, Sec. 1306)
provided for the president to waive prohibitions on CTR aid (as contained in
Sec.1203 of P.L. 103-160) to a state of the former Soviet Union if he certified that
the waiver was necessary for national security and submitted a report outlining why
the waiver was necessary and how he planned to promote future compliance with the
restrictions on CTR aid. The waiver authority, exercisable each fiscal year, expired
at the end of FY2005. (The six restrictions in P.L. 103-160 include a call for CTR

---

CRS-25
recipients to observe internationally recognized human rights.) In FY2004 and
FY2005, the President explained that Uzbekistan’s human rights problems
necessitated waivers. Defense Authorizations for FY2006 (P.L. 109-163) provide a
non-sunset waiver authority, exercisable annually. Waivers for Uzbekistan were
issued for FY2006 and FY2007. In the 110th Congress, Senator Sam Nunn
introduced S. 198 on January 8, 2007, to amend P.L.103-160 to eliminate the
restrictions on CTR aid, including respect for human rights. Although waivers can
be and are exercised when the conditions are not met, he stated, the lengthy process
of making determinations and exercising waivers threatens the primary U.S. national
security goal of combating WMD. Language similar to S. 198 was incorporated into
H.R. 1 (P.L. 110-53; signed into law on August 3, 2007, see below, Legislation).55
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. U.S. trade agreements have been signed and entered into
force with all the Central Asian states, but bilateral investment treaties are in force
only with Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Permanent normal trade relations with
Kyrgyzstan were established by law in June 2000, so that “Jackson-Vanik” trade
provisions no longer apply that call for presidential reports and waivers concerning
freedom of emigration.
In June 2004, The U.S. Trade Representative signed a Trade and Investment
Framework Agreement (TIFA) with ambassadors of the regional states to establish
a U.S.-Central Asia Council on Trade and Investment. The Council meets yearly to
address intellectual property, labor, environmental protection, and other issues that
impede trade and private investment flows between the United States and Central
Asia. The Bush Administration at the annual meetings also has called for greater
intra-regional cooperation on trade and encouraged the development of regional trade
and transport ties with Afghanistan and South Asia. As stated by Secretary Rice,
these efforts support a “new Silk Road, a great corridor of reform” extending from
Europe southward to Afghanistan and the Indian Ocean. According to Evan
Feigenbaum, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, “we are
... promoting options and opportunities omni-directionally but increasingly to the
south — the least developed direction.” The reorganization of the State Department
in 2006 to create the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs facilitated this
emphasis.56
55 Congressional Record, January 8, 2007, pp. S237-S238.
56 Remarks at Eurasian National University, October 13, 2005; and U.S. Congress. House
International Relations Committee. Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia.
Testimony by Steven R. Mann, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, July 25, 2006. See
also U.S. Embassy Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan and the United States in a Changed World,
August 23, 2006.

---

CRS-26
At the third annual meeting of the Council on Trade and Investment in mid-July
2007, Assistant Secretary of State Boucher and Deputy Assistant Secretary
Feigenbaum stressed transport, electricity, and other links between South and Central
Asia as well as U.S. private investment in the region.57 Major foci of the U.S. Trade
and Development Agency’s Central Asian Infrastructure Integration Initiative and
USAID’s Regional Energy Market Assistance Program include encouraging energy,
transportation, and communications projects, including the development of electrical
power infrastructure and power sharing between Central Asia, Afghanistan, and
eventually Pakistan and India.58
All the states of the region possess large-scale resources that could contribute
to the region becoming a “new silk road” of trade and commerce. The Kazakh and
Turkmen economies are mostly geared to energy exports but need added foreign
investment for production and transport. Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan
are major cotton producers, a legacy of central economic planning during the Soviet
period. Cotton production has contributed to environmental pollution and water
shortages. Uzbekistan’s cotton and gold production rank among the highest in the
world and much is exported. It has moderate gas reserves but needs investment to
upgrade infrastructure. Kyrgyzstan has 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.
Despite the region’s development potential, the challenges of corruption,
inadequate transport infrastructure, punitive tariffs, border tensions, and uncertain
respect for contracts discourage major foreign investment (except for some
investment in the energy sector). Examples of such challenges include Uzbekistan’s
restrictions on land transit, which have encouraged Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan to
explore building a major road to Kazakhstan that bypasses Uzbekistan. The
challenge of corruption was underscored by a report issued in early 2006 by the non-
governmental organization Global Witness, which alleged that then-Turkmen
President Niyazov personally controlled a vast portion of the wealth generated from
natural gas exports. The NGO raised concerns that organized crime groups were
involved in these exports and urged the EU to limit trade ties with Turkmenistan.59
57 U.S. Department of State. Richard Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State for South and
Central Asia. Remarks at the South and Central Asia Regional Economic Integration
Meeting, July 18, 2007; Evan A. Feigenbaum, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State South and
Central Asian Affairs. Remarks to Participants of the Third Annual Meeting of the
U.S.-Central Asia Trade and Investment Framework Agreement, U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, July 18, 2007.
58 U.S. Trade and Development Agency. Press Release: USTDA Launches Central Asian
Infrastructure Integration Initiative, October 14, 2005; Richard A. Boucher, Remarks at
Electricity Beyond Borders: A Central Asia Power Sector Forum, Istanbul, Turkey, June 13,
2006; Joshua Kucera, “Washington Seeks to Steer Central Asian States Toward South Asian
Allies,” Eurasia Insight, April 28, 2006; Joshua Kucera, “USAID Official Outlines Plan to
Build Central-South Asian Electricity Links,” Eurasia Insight, May 4, 2006.
59 Global Witness. It’s a Gas: Funny Business in the Turkmen-Ukraine Gas Trade, April
2006.

---

CRS-27
Oil and Natural Gas 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 2001 National Energy Policy report suggested that
greater oil production in the Caspian region could not only benefit regional
economies, but also help mitigate possible world supply disruptions. It
recommended U.S. support for building the BTC pipeline and an Azerbaijan-Turkey
gas pipeline, coaxing Kazakhstan to use the oil pipeline, and otherwise encouraging
the regional states to provide a stable and inviting business climate for energy
development.60
Until 2004, the Administration retained a Special Advisor on Caspian Energy
Diplomacy, who helped to further U.S. policy and counter the efforts of Russia’s
Viktor Kaluzhny, deputy foreign minister and Special Presidential Representative for
Energy Matters in the Caspian. This responsibility came to be shifted at least in part
to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in 2005-
2006 along with responsibilities of the former Special Negotiator for
Nagorno-Karabakh and Eurasian Conflicts.61 Some critics have juxtaposed Putin’s
close interest in securing Caspian energy resources to what they term sporadic U.S.
efforts.62
The Caspian region is emerging as a notable source of oil and gas for world
markets, although many experts argue that regional exports will constitute only a
small fraction of world supplies. According to the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), the region's proven natural gas reserves are estimated at 232 trillion cubic
feet (tcf), comparable to Saudi Arabia.63 The region’s proven oil reserves are
estimated to be between 17-49 billion barrels, comparable to Qatar on the low end
and Libya on the high end. Kazakhstan possesses the region’s largest proven oil
reserves at 9-40 billion barrels, according to DOE, and also possesses 65tcf of natural
60 The White House. National Energy Policy, May 2001. The BTC pipeline began
delivering oil to Turkey’s port of Ceyhan in mid-2006. The South Caucasus Pipeline was
completed in early 2007.
61 In 2004, the Department of State’s Inspector General recommended that the post of
Special Advisor on Caspian Energy Diplomacy might “now be phased out, with residual
responsibilities folded into other units,” because the purpose for which it was created was
achieved. Office of the Inspector General. Semiannual Report to the Congress, October 1,
2003 to March 31, 2004. The Special Advisor’s duties included “realizing the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, in the launch of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium
(CPC) line, and a range of other Eurasian energy issues.” Office of the Spokesman. Press
Release, April 16, 2004.
62 Eurasia Daily Monitor, May 31, 2007.
63 Including the countries of Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan, and
Uzbekistan.

---

CRS-28
gas. Kazakhstan’s oil exports currently are about 1.3 million barrels per day (bpd).
Some U.S. energy firms and other private foreign investors have become discouraged
in recent months by harsher Kazakh government terms, taxes, and fines that some
allege reflect corruption within the ruling elite.64 Turkmenistan possesses about 71tcf
and Uzbekistan about 66tcf of proven gas reserves, according to DOE.65
Especially since Russia’s temporary cutoff of gas to Ukraine in January 2006
highlighted European vulnerability, the United States has supported EU efforts to
reduce its overall reliance on Russian oil and gas by increasing the number of
possible alternative suppliers. Part of this policy has involved encouraging Central
Asian countries to transport their energy exports to Europe through pipelines or
routes that bypass Russia (and Iran), although these amounts are expected at most to
satisfy only a tiny fraction of EU needs.66
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 export
pipelines.67 Except as described below, Russia appeared to strengthen its position as
the major export route for Central Asian energy in May 2007 when visiting President
Putin reached agreement in Kazakhstan on supplying more Kazakh oil to Russia,
which Nazarbayev hoped could then be sent through the proposed pipeline from
Burgas, Bulgaria to Alexandropoulis, Greece. Putin also reached agreement with the
presidents of Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan on the construction of a new pipeline to
transport Turkmen and Kazakh gas to Russia. The first agreement appeared to
compete with U.S. and Turkish efforts to foster more oil exports through the BTC.
The latter agreement appeared to compete with U.S. and EU efforts to foster building
a trans-Caspian gas pipeline to link to the SCP to Turkey. The latter also appeared
to compete with U.S. and EU efforts to foster building a pipeline from Turkey
through Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary to Austria (the so-called Nabucco pipeline).

Kazakhstan’s main oil export route has been a 930-mile pipeline — owned by
the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), in which Russian shareholders have a
controlling interest — that carries 234.56 million barrels per year of oil from
Kazakhstan to Russia’s Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. Lengthy Russian resistance
64 A recent perhaps troubling case concerns Kazakhstan’s late August 2007 suspension of
the activities of the international consortium developing the Kashagan offshore oilfield.
Kazakh officials claim that the consortium’s claims of greatly increased costs of
development may void the production sharing agreement. Guy Chazan, “Cash All Gone,”
Wall Street Journal, August 28, 2007.
65 U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Caspian Sea Country
Analysis Brief, January 2007; Caspian Sea Region: Survey of Key Oil and Gas Statistics and
Forecasts, July 2006.
66 For details, see CRS Report RL33636, The European Union’s Energy Security
Challenges, by Paul Belkin. See also International Crisis Group. Central Asia’s Energy
Risks, May 24, 2007.
67 Jeronim Perovic, “From Disengagement to Active Economic Competition: Russia’s
Return to the South Caucasus and Central Asia,” Demokratizatsiya, Winter 2005, pp. 61-86;
Kimberly Marten, “Disrupting the Balance: Russian Efforts to Control Kazakhstan’s Oil,”
PONARS Policy Memo No. 428, December 2006.

---

CRS-29
to increasing the pumping capacity of the pipeline and demands for higher transit and
other fees, along with the necessity of offloading the oil into tankers at Novorossiysk
to transit the clogged Turkish Straits, spurred a decision in mid-2006 by U.S. and
Western investors and Kazakhstan to increase oil barging across the Caspian Sea to
Azerbaijan to the BTC pipeline. Up to 500,000 barrels per day of Kazakh oil from
the Kashagan field may transit through the BTC pipeline. Putin’s May 2007
agreement with Nazarbayev (see above) envisages boosting the capacity of the CPC
pipeline. Nonetheless, Kazakhstan is upgrading its port at Atyrau and in August
2007 signed a memorandum of understanding with Azerbaijan on using the BTC as
an added export route.68

Besides Kazakhstan’s use of the BTC pipeline as an export route not controlled
by Russia, Kazakhstan and China have completed an oil pipeline from Atasu in
central Kazakhstan to the Xinjiang region of China (a distance of about 600 miles).
Kazakhstan began delivering oil through the pipeline in May 2006. Initial capacity
is 146.6 million barrels per year. At Atasu, it links to another pipeline from Kumkol,
also in central Kazakhstan, and will eventually link to Atyrau on Kazakhstan’s
Caspian Sea coast.
In Turkmenistan, the late Niyazov signed a 25-year accord with Putin in 2003
on supplying Russia up to 211.9 billion cubic feet (bcf) of gas in 2004 (about 12%
of production), rising up to 2.83 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2009-2028, perhaps then
tying up most if not all of Turkmenistan’s future production. Turkmenistan halted
gas shipments to Russia at the end of 2004 in an attempt to get a higher gas price but
settled for all-cash rather than partial barter payments. In early 2006, Turkmenistan
again requested higher gas prices from Russia, because Russia’s state-controlled
Gazprom gas firm had raised the price it charged for customers receiving the gas that
it had purchased from Turkmenistan. In June 2006, Turkmenistan threatened to cut
off gas shipments at the end of July unless Gazprom agreed to a price increase from
$65 per 35.314 thousand cubic feet to $100 for the rest of 2006. On July 25,
Gazprom shut off one major pipeline from Turkmenistan for eight days of “repairs.”
In early September 2006, Gazprom agreed to pay $100 per 35.314 thousand cubic
feet from 2007 to the end of 2009, and Turkmenistan pledged to supply 1.483 trillion
cubic feet (tcf) in 2006, 1.765 tcf in 2007-2008, and 2.83 tcf from 2009-2028.
Seeking alternatives to pipeline routes through Russia, in December 1997
Turkmenistan opened the first pipeline from Central Asia to the outside world
beyond Russia, a 125-mile gas pipeline linkage to Iran. Turkmenistan provided
282.5 bcf of gas to Iran in 2006. In early April 2006, Turkmenistan and China signed
a framework agreement calling for Chinese investment in developing gas fields in
Turkmenistan and in building a gas pipeline through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to
68 On January 24, 2007, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by the firms
in the TengizChevroil consortium (ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, LukoilArco, and the
Kazakh state oil and gas firm KazMunayGaz) and those in the KCO consortium (Eni-Agip,
Total, ExxonMobil, Royal-Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips, Inpex, and KazMunayGaz) to put
together port facilities and tankers to transport Kazakh oil to Azerbaijan. Vladimir Socor,
Eurasia Daily Monitor, January 25, 2007. See also Dow Jones Commodities Service, June
28, 2007. Another MOU was signed by KazMunayGaz and Azerbaijan’s SOCAR state oil
company on August 8, 2007, on oil transport cooperation.

---

CRS-30
China. Some observers warn that because Turkmenistan has pledged a large amount
of gas to Gazprom, with the hope that future production will vastly increase beyond
this amount, there may not be much gas remaining to be exported to other customers.
U.S. Aid Overview
For much of the 1990s and until September 11, 2001, the United States provided
much more aid each year to Russia and Ukraine than to any Central Asian state (most
such aid was funded from the FSA account in Foreign Operations Appropriations,
but some derived from other program and agency budgets). Cumulative foreign aid
budgeted to Central Asia for FY1992 through FY2005 amounted to $3.8 billion,
13.6% of the amount budgeted to all the Eurasian states, reflecting the lesser priority
given to these states prior to September 11.69 Budgeted spending for FY2002 for
Central Asia, during OEF, was greatly boosted in absolute amounts ($584 million)
and as a share of total aid to Eurasia (about one-quarter of such aid). The
Administration’s aid requests since then have gradually declined in absolute amounts,
although it has continued to stress important U.S. interests in the region. The
Administration has highlighted the phase-out of economic aid to Kazakhstan and
restrictions on aid to Uzbekistan (see below) as among the reasons for declining aid
requests. Aid to Central Asia in FY2005 and thereafter has been about the same or
less in absolute and percentage terms than that provided to the South Caucasian
region. (See Table 1).
Looking only at FSA funding, Congress approved $99 million for the states of
Central Asia for FY2006, $17.5 million below the presidential request (P.L.
109-102), perhaps reflecting growing concern about human rights abuses and a push
to reduce spending. The Administration proposed phasing out economic reform aid
to Kazakhstan by FY2009, because of “quantifiable reform progress” in the
democratic, economic, and social sectors. In its FY2008 budget request, the
Administration called for $79.07 million in FSA aid for the states of Central Asia,
and stated that the focus was on Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, “where
there are opportunities to consolidate stability and promote democratization.”70
Regarding FY2007 assistance, a continuing resolution was signed into law on
September 29, 2006 (H.R. 5631/P.L. 109-289, Division B) that provided funding for
foreign operations at the lower of the House-passed, Senate-passed, or FY2006 level
through February 15, 2007. P.L. 109-289 was amended by P.L. 109-369 and P.L.
109-383. On February 15, 2007, H.J.Res. 20 was signed into law (P.L. 110-5), to
further amend P.L. 109-289 to provide funding for foreign operations for the
remainder of FY2007 under the authority, conditions, and level of FY2006 funding,
except as adjusted. Table 1 contains amounts for FY2007 approved by the
69 In comparison, the EU has reported that it has provided about $1.5 billion in assistance
to the region since 1991. However, it plans “substantially increased” aid amounting to about
$1 billion in 2007-2013. This may prove to be more than projected U.S. aid to the region.
“Ferrero-Waldner to attend EU-Central Asia Ministerial Troika,” March 27, 2007; Council
of the European Union. Presidency Conclusions, 11177/07, June 23, 2007, p. 12.
70 Congressional Budget Presentation for Foreign Operations FY2008.

---

CRS-31
congressional appropriations committees following notifications (as called for by
section 653a of the foreign assistance act). The $132.9 million approved for FY2007
includes approximately $101.1 million in FSA funding, $6.7 million in Peace Corps
funding, $8.5 million in P.L.480 food assistance to Tajikistan, $2.9 million in IMET
funding, $5.3 million in FMF funding, and $7.5 million in Non-Proliferation, Anti-
Terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR) funding.
Congressional Conditions on Kazakh and Uzbek Aid. In Congress,
Omnibus Appropriations for FY2003 (P.L. 108-7) forbade FREEDOM Support Act
(FSA) assistance to the government of Uzbekistan unless the Secretary of State
determined and reported that it was making substantial progress in meeting
commitments under the Strategic Partnership Declaration to democratize and respect
human rights. P.L. 108-7 also forbade assistance to the Kazakh government unless
the Secretary of State determined and reported that it significantly had improved its
human rights record during the preceding six months. However, the legislation
permitted the Secretary to waive the requirement on national security grounds. The
Secretary reported in May 2003, that Uzbekistan was making such progress (by late
2003, the Administration had decided that it could no longer make this claim; see
above, Weapons of Mass Destruction). In July 2003, the Secretary reported that
Kazakhstan was making progress. Some in Congress were critical of these findings.
Consolidated Appropriations for FY2004, including foreign operations (P.L.
108-199) and for FY2005 (P.L. 108-447, Section 578), and Foreign Operations
Appropriations for FY2006 (P.L. 109-102, Sections 586 and 587) retained these
conditions, while clarifying that the prohibition on aid to Uzbekistan pertained to the
central government and that conditions included respecting human rights,
establishing a “genuine” multi-party system, and ensuring free and fair elections and
freedom of expression and media. The State Department has indicated that these
conditions remain in place under the continuing resolution for FY2007 (P.L.
109-289, as amended; see above).
State Department Implementation in FY2004. In July 2004, the State
Department announced that, despite some “encouraging progress” in respecting
human rights, up to $18 million in aid to Uzbekistan might be withheld because of
“lack of progress on democratic reform and restrictions put on U.S. assistance
partners on the ground” (in contrast, progress was reported regarding Kazakhstan).71
This determination potentially affected IMET and FMF programs as well as
FREEDOM Support Act funding, since legislative provisions condition IMET and
FMF on respect for human rights.72 The State Department reprogrammed or used
71 U.S. Department of State. Office of the Spokesman. Secretary of State Decision Not to
Certify Uzbekistan, July 13, 2004.
72 Sec.502B of Part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L.87-195) states that “no
security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a
consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” Sec.502B
also specifies that IMET cannot be provided “to a country the government of which engages
in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights,” unless
the President certifies in writing that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting the
(continued...)

---

CRS-32
notwithstanding authority (after consultation with Congress) to expend some of the
funds, so that about $8.5 million was ultimately withheld. Notwithstanding authority
was used for funding health care reforms, promoting better treatment of detainees,
combating HIV/AIDS, combating trafficking in drugs and persons, and supporting
World Trade Organization accession. During an August 2004 visit to Uzbekistan,
Gen. Myers criticized the cutoff of IMET and FMF programs as “shortsighted” and
not “productive,” since it reduced U.S. military influence (see also above, Weapons
of Mass Destruction).73
State Department Implementation in FY2005. For FY2005, Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice reported to Congress in May 2005 that Kazakhstan had
failed to significantly improve its human rights record, but that she had waived aid
restrictions on national security grounds. The Secretary of State in FY2005 did not
determine and report to Congress that Uzbekistan was making significant progress
in respecting human rights, so Section 578 aid restrictions remained in place. The
State Department reported that it used notwithstanding authority to allocate $4.16
million in FREEDOM Support Act aid to Uzbekistan to continue the same programs
it used the authority for in FY2004.74
State Department Implementation in FY2006. For FY2006, Secretary
of State Rice reported to Congress in May 2006 that Kazakhstan had failed to
significantly improve its human rights record but that she had waived aid restrictions
on national security grounds. She did not determine and report to Congress that
Uzbekistan was making significant progress in respecting human rights, so Section
586 restrictions remained in place (IMET and FMF programs were among the
affected programs that did not receive funding). The State Department repeated its
FY2005 statement that it used notwithstanding authority to allocate $4.16 million in
FREEDOM Support Act aid to Uzbekistan in FY2006.
State Department Implementation in FY2007. Operating under the
direction of the continuing resolution (P.L. 109-289, as amended; see above), the
State Department reported to Congress that Kazakhstan had failed to significantly
improve its human rights record but that it had waived aid restrictions on national
security grounds. It did not determine and report to Congress that Uzbekistan was
making significant progress in respecting human rights, so Section 586 restrictions
remained in place (IMET and FMF programs were among the affected programs that
did not receive funding).
72 (...continued)
provision of IMET. Notwithstanding authority is provided for the president to furnish
security assistance if there is “significant improvement” in a government’s human rights
record. Some IMET and FMF was provided to Uzbekistan in FY2004. See U.S.
Departments of Defense and State. Foreign Military Training: Joint Report to Congress,
FY2004-FY2005, April 2005.
73 Defense and Foreign Affairs Daily, August 16, 2004.
74 Some IMET aid was provided to Uzbekistan in FY2005. See U.S. Departments of
Defense and State. Foreign Military Training: Joint Report to Congress, FY2005-FY2006,
September 2006.

---

CRS-33
Besides bilateral and regional aid, the United States contributes to international
financial institutions that aid Central Asia. Recurrent policy issues regarding U.S.
aid include what it should be used for, who should receive it, and whether it is
effective.
110th Congress Legislation
P.L. 110-53 (H.R. 1, Bennie Thompson)
Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007. Introduced
on January 5, 2007. Passed the House on January 9, 2007. Passed the Senate with
an amendment in the nature of a substitute on July 9, 2007. Conference report
(H.Rept. 110-259) agreed to in the Senate on July 26 and in the House on July 27.
Signed into law on August 3, 2007 (P.L. 110-53). Sec. 1811 repeals specified
restrictions on the use of Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program funds and
activities. Title 21 calls for the executive branch to promote democratization and
respect for human rights in nondemocratic and democratic transition countries. Sec.
2033 calls for expanding scholarship, exchange, and library programs in
predominantly Muslim countries to enhance respect for democracy and human rights.

S. 198 (Nunn)
Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2007. Introduced on January
8, 2007; referred to the Committee on Armed Services and the Foreign Relations
Committee. Amends the Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 1991, the
Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993, and the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2000 to repeal specified restrictions on the use of Cooperative
Threat Reduction (CTR) program funds and activities. Amends the FREEDOM
Support Act of 1992 to make specified funding requirements respecting independent
countries of the former Soviet Union inapplicable to CTR programs. Similar
language was incorporated into H.R. 1 (see above).
S. 328 (Menendez)
Ensuring Implementation of the 9/11 Commission Report Act. Introduced on
January 17, 2007. Sec. 324 contains language similar to that in S. 198 (above).
H.R. 2869 (Pitts)
The Central Asia Education Enhancement Act of 2007. Introduced on June 26,
2007; referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Establishes a pilot program of
fifty Central Asian scholarships in each of the fiscal years FY2008-FY2010 for
undergraduate and graduate level public policy internships in the United States.

---

CRS-34
Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance to Central Asia,
FY1992 to FY2008
(millions of dollars)
FY1992 thru
Central Asian
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2005
Country
Budgeteda Budgeteda Estimatea Requestb
Budgeteda
Kazakhstan
1,244.8
84.6
88.48
29.2
24.32
Kyrgyzstan
806.5
54.21
43.54
36.45
31.43
Tajikistan
679.7
65.69
45.01
35.84
32.12
Turkmenistan
255.4
18.44
10.44
12.48
8.43
Uzbekistan
760.9
75.87
49.41
15.49
9.37
Regional
73.2
3.34
4.83
3.46
2.5
Total
3,820.5
302.15
241.71
132.92
108.17
Percent 14
15
12
20
25
Sources: State Department, U.S. Government Assistance to and Cooperative
Activities with Eurasia: FY2006 Annual Report; Congressional Budget Justification
for Foreign Operations, FY2008: South and Central Asia.
a. FSA and Agency funds. Excludes some classified coalition support funding.
b. FSA and other Function 150 funds, including Peace Corps. Does not include
Defense or Energy Department funds, or funding for exchanges.

Figure 1. Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan
Ast ana
MON.
Aral
Sea
Alma Ata
Bishkek
Caspian
UZBEKISTAN
KYRGYZSTAN
Sea
Am
Tashkent
AZER.
u Da
Baku
ry
TURKMENISTAN
a
Dushanbe
Ashgabat
TAJIK.
0
500 Miles
Tehran
Kabul
Islamabad
0
500 KM
AFGHANISTAN
INDIA
Parallel scale at 40û
N 0û
E
PAKISTAN
Source: Map Resources. Adapted by CRS. (08/02 M. Chin)

---