Central Asia: Regional Developments and
Implications for U.S. Interests

Jim Nichol
Specialist in Russian and Eurasian Affairs
September 19, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33458
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Summary
U.S. policy toward the Central Asian states has aimed at facilitating their cooperation with U.S.
and NATO stabilization efforts in Afghanistan and their efforts to combat terrorism; proliferation;
and trafficking in arms, drugs, and persons. Other U.S. objectives have included promoting free
markets, democratization, human rights, energy development, and the forging of East-West and
Central Asia-South Asia trade links. Such policies aim to help the states become what various
U.S. administrations have considered to be responsible members of the international community
rather than to degenerate into xenophobic, extremist, and anti-Western regimes that contribute to
wider regional conflict and instability.
Soon after the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, all the Central Asian
“front-line” states offered over-flight and other support for coalition anti-terrorism operations 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.
About two dozen Kazakhstani troops served in Iraq until late 2008. Uzbekistan rescinded U.S.
basing rights in 2005 after the United States criticized the reported killing of civilians in the town
of Andijon. In early 2009, Kyrgyzstan ordered a U.S. base in that country to close, allegedly
because of Russian inducements and U.S. reluctance to meet Kyrgyz requests for greatly
increased lease payments. An agreement on continued U.S. use of the Manas Transit Center was
reached in June 2009. In recent years, most of the regional states also participate in the Northern
Distribution Network for the transport of U.S. and NATO supplies into and out of Afghanistan.
Policymakers have tailored U.S. policy in Central Asia to the varying characteristics of these
states. U.S. interests in Kazakhstan have included securing and eliminating Soviet-era nuclear and
biological weapons materials and facilities. U.S. energy firms have invested in oil and natural gas
development in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, and successive administrations have backed
diverse export routes to the West for these resources. U.S. policy toward Kyrgyzstan has long
included support for its civil society. In Tajikistan, the United States focuses on developmental
assistance to bolster the fragile economy and address high poverty rates. U.S. relations with
Uzbekistan—the most populous state in the heart of the region—were cool after 2005, but
recently have improved.
Congress has been at the forefront in advocating increased U.S. ties with Central Asia, and in
providing backing for the region for the transit of equipment and supplies for U.S.-led
stabilization efforts in Afghanistan. Congress has pursued these goals through hearings and
legislation on humanitarian, economic, and democratization assistance; security issues; and
human rights. During the 112th Congress, the Members may review assistance for bolstering
regional border and customs controls and other safeguards to prevent the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction (WMD), combating trafficking in persons and drugs, encouraging regional
integration with South Asia and Europe, advancing energy security, and countering terrorism.
Support for these goals also has been viewed as contributing to stabilization and reconstruction
operations by the United States and NATO in Afghanistan. For several years, Congress has placed
conditions on assistance to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan because of concerns about human rights
abuses and lagging democratization (the Secretary of State may waive such conditions). Congress
will continue to consider how to balance these varied U.S. interests in the region.

Congressional Research Service

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Contents
Most Recent Developments ............................................................................................................. 1
Historical Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
Overview of U.S. Policy Concerns.................................................................................................. 2
Post-September 11 and Afghanistan.......................................................................................... 5
Support for Operation Iraqi Freedom ........................................................................................ 6
Fostering Pro-Western Orientations................................................................................................. 6
Russia’s Role ............................................................................................................................. 8
Obstacles to Peace and Independence: Regional Tensions and Conflicts...................................... 11
Terrorism and Conflict in Kazakhstan..................................................................................... 13
Incursions and Violence in Kyrgyzstan ................................................................................... 15
The 2010 Ethnic Clashes in Kyrgyzstan ........................................................................... 15
Attacks by Jama’at Kyrgyzstan Jaish al-Mahdi in 2010-2011 .......................................... 17
Terrorism and Conflict in Tajikistan........................................................................................ 18
The 1992-1997 Civil War in Tajikistan ............................................................................. 18
The 2010 Attacks in Tajikistan.......................................................................................... 18
The 2012 Instability in Mountainous Badakhshan............................................................ 19
Terrorism and Conflict in Uzbekistan...................................................................................... 20
The 2005 Violence in Andijon, Uzbekistan....................................................................... 21
The Summer 2009 Suicide Bombings and Attacks in Uzbekistan .................................... 22
U.S. Designation of the IMU and IJU as Terrorist Organizations ........................................... 23
Democratization and Human Rights.............................................................................................. 23
Recent Developments in Kazakshtan ...................................................................................... 25
Recent Developments in Kyrgyzstan....................................................................................... 27
Recent Developments in Turkmenistan................................................................................... 29
Recent Developments in Uzbekistan....................................................................................... 29
Human Rights.......................................................................................................................... 30
Kazakhstan and the Presidency of the OSCE.......................................................................... 33
Security and Arms Control ............................................................................................................ 35
Programs and Assistance ......................................................................................................... 36
Closure of the Karshi-Khanabad Airbase ................................................................................ 39
Efforts to Improve Security Relations............................................................................... 40
The Manas Airbase/Transit Center .......................................................................................... 41
The Manas Transit Center Agreement............................................................................... 41
The Status of the Manas Transit Center After the April 2010 Coup.................................. 42
The December 2010 Congressional Report on Fuel Contracts ......................................... 43
Recent Fuel Contract Developments................................................................................. 44
The Northern Distribution Network to Afghanistan................................................................ 45
Weapons of Mass Destruction ................................................................................................. 47
Trade and Investment..................................................................................................................... 48
Energy Resources .................................................................................................................... 50
Kazakhstan’s Oil and Gas ................................................................................................. 52
Turkmenistan’s Gas........................................................................................................... 55
Uzbekistan......................................................................................................................... 57
U.S. Aid Overview......................................................................................................................... 58
Congressional Research Service

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Congressional Conditions on Kazakh and Uzbek Aid............................................................. 59

Figures
Figure 1. Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and
Uzbekistan .................................................................................................................................. 63

Tables
Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance to Central Asia, FY1992 to FY2011, and the FY2012
Request ....................................................................................................................................... 61
Table 2. U.S. Assistance to Central Asia, FY1992-FY2001 .......................................................... 62
Table 3. U.S. Assistance to Central Asia, FY2002-FY2010 (and Totals, FY1992-FY2010)......... 62

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 64

Congressional Research Service

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Most Recent Developments
Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Kyrgyzstan and met with President Almazbek
Atambayev on September 20, 2012. The two sides signed a 15-year extension to Russia’s lease on
military facilities in the country, including the Kant airbase, operated as part of the Russia-led
Collective Security Treaty Organization group of forces in the region. Russia’s rent payment for
using the facilities—reportedly $4.5 million per year—reportedly did not change, although issues
of training and Kyrgyzstan’s supply of free utilities to the facilities reportedly were addressed.
The two sides also signed accords canceling one $190 million Kyrgyz debt and restructuring
another $300 million loan (the latter had been given by Putin to Kyrgyzstan in 2009). Another
agreement pledged assistance by Russian firms in building several hydropower projects,
including a renewed commitment to assist with the Kambarata-1 dam and hydroelectric power
station. In a joint statement, Atambayev pledged to close the U.S. “Transit Center” (airbase) at
Manas in 2014, and Putin pledged to consider assistance to help convert the “Transit Center”
facilities to civilian use. Hailing agreements that further integrated the two countries militarily
and economically, President Atambayev stated at a press conference that “Russia is our main
strategic partner.... We do not have a future separate from Russia.”1
During a visit by Uzbek President Islam Karimov to Kazakhstan on September 6-7, 2012, where
he met with President Nursultan Nazarbayev, the two leaders agreed that dams planned to be built
by Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan must be approved by the downstream states in accordance with
expert consensus and international conventions. Allegedly President Karimov warned of possible
water wars, eliciting criticism in the Kyrgyz legislature. Despite Karimov’s warnings about the
Kambarata-1 dam project, Russia reportedly plans new cooperation with Kyrgyzstan in building
the dam (see above).
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 Open Source Center, Central Eurasia: Daily Report (hereafter CEDR), September 20, 2012, Doc. No. CEP-950131,
CEP-950107, and CEP-950085; Interfax, September 20, 2012.
2 See CRS Report 97-1058, Kazakhstan: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests, by Jim Nichol; CRS Report 97-690,
Kyrgyzstan: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests, by Jim Nichol; CRS Report 98-594, Tajikistan: Recent
Developments and U.S. Interests
, by Jim Nichol, CRS Report 97-1055, Turkmenistan: Recent Developments and U.S.
Interests
, by Jim Nichol, and CRS Report RS21238, Uzbekistan: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests, by Jim
Nichol.
Congressional Research Service
1

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

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) aid authorization 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” (P.L. 106-113), which authorized 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 appropriate 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 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, 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.
Advocates of such ties have argued that
Central Asia: Basic Facts
political turmoil and the growth of terrorist
Total area: 1.6 million sq. mi., larger than India;
enclaves in Central Asia could produce
Kazakhstan: 1.1 m. sq. mi.; Kyrgyzstan: 77,000 sq. mi.;
spillover effects both in nearby states,
Tajikistan: 55,800 sq. mi.; Turkmenistan: 190,000 sq. mi.;
including U.S. allies and friends such as
Uzbekistan: 174,500 sq. mi.
Turkey, and worldwide. They also have argued
Total population: approximately 64.23 million, slightly
that the United States has a major interest in
less than France; Kazakhstan: 17.52 m.; Kyrgyzstan: 5.5
preventing terrorist regimes or groups from
m.; Tajikistan: 7.77 m.; Turkmenistan: 5.05 m.;
Uzbekistan: 28.39 m. (July 2012 est., The World Factbook.)
illicitly acquiring Soviet-era technology for
making weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Total gross domestic product: approximately
$389.69 billion in 2011; per capita GDP is about $6,070,
They have maintained that U.S. interests do
but there are large income disparities and relatively large
not perfectly coincide with those of its allies
percentages of people in each country are in poverty.
and friends, that Turkey and other actors
Kazakhstan: $219.6 b.; Kyrgyzstan: $13.29 b.; Tajikistan:
possess limited aid resources, and that the
$16.43 b.; Turkmenistan: $43.91 b.; Uzbekistan: $96.46 b.
United States is in the strongest position as the
(The World Factbook, purchasing power parity.)
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.4

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,
former Secretary Rice argued that the country had the potential to be the “engine for growth” in Central Asia. Mostly
recently, Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake has reiterated that “our relations with Kazakhstan ... are the deepest
and broadest of all countries in Central Asia.” U.S. Department of State, On-the-Record Briefing With International
Media: Robert O. Blake, Jr., Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs
, August 15, 2012.
4 At least some of these views seemed to be reflected in the former Bush Administration’s 2006 National Security
Strategy of the United States, which proclaimed that “Central Asia is an enduring priority for our foreign policy.” The
Obama Administration’s May 2010 National Security Strategy does not specifically mention Central Asia or the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

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—when the United
States came to stress counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan—but aspects of these views
could again come to the fore in debates over U.S. security policy in Afghanistan and Central Asia.
These observers argued that the United States historically had few interests in Central Asia 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 in Central Asia. They also argued that the United States should not
try to foster democratization among cultures they claimed are historically attuned to
authoritarianism. Some observers rejected arguments that U.S. interests in anti-terrorism, non-
proliferation, regional cooperation, and trade outweighed concerns over democratization and
human rights, and urged reducing or cutting off most aid to repressive Central Asian states. A few
observers pointed to instability in the region as a reason to eschew deeper U.S. involvement such
as military access that could needlessly place more U.S. personnel and citizens in danger.
The Obama Administration has listed six objectives of what it terms an enhanced U.S.
engagement policy in Central Asia:
• to maximize the cooperation of the states of the region with coalition counter-
terrorism efforts in Afghanistan (particularly cooperation on hosting U.S. and
NATO airbases and on the transit of troops and supplies to Afghanistan along the
“Northern Distribution Network”; see below);
• to increase the development and diversification of the region’s energy resources
and supply routes;
• to promote the eventual emergence of good governance and respect for human
rights;
• to foster competitive market economies;
• to combat the trafficking of narcotics and people; and
• to sustain non-proliferation.
Signs of this enhanced engagement include U.S. senior-level diplomatic visits and annual
meetings of the U.S.-Central Asia Council on Trade and Investment (see below). In 2009, the
Obama Administration also launched high-level Annual Bilateral Consultations (ABCs) with each
of the regional states on counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism, democratic reform, rule of law,
human rights, trade, investment, health, and education. In February 2012, the State Department
announced that it was elevating relations with Kazakhstan to the level of a strategic partnership
dialogue by transforming the bilateral ABC into a Strategic Partnership Commission, similar to
the ones with Georgia and Ukraine. The first meeting of this Commission took place in April
2012 in Washington, D.C., during which political, economic, and scientific working groups
discussed plans for bilateral projects.
In February 2012, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that Central Asian
states were unstable and increasingly vulnerable to violent extremism. He appeared to argue that

(...continued)
Caspian region. The White House, National Security Strategy of the United States, March 16, 2006, p. 40; National
Security Strategy
, May 2010.
Congressional Research Service
3

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

most of the regional governments have reacted to “Arab Spring” developments by further
constraining civil liberties and human rights. He warned that ethnic violence might recur in
Kyrgyzstan’s southern regions.5
In July 2010, Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake refuted the arguments of critics “that this
Administration is too focused on the security relationship with [Central Asian] countries and
forgets about human rights.” He stated that human rights and civil society issues “will remain an
essential part of our dialogue equal in importance to our discussion on security issues.”6
Similarly, in Congressional testimony in July 2012, he argued that “the path to progress on
[human rights] is more engagement with these governments, not less.”7
In September 2010, Assistant Secretary Blake argued that closer U.S.-Russia ties were facilitating
U.S. engagement in Central Asia, and stated that “we want to not only build on that progress with
respect to our relations in Kyrgyzstan, but also to look at other ways that the United States and
Russia can cooperate in the region.”8 Other observers have disputed this characterization in
regard to Kyrgyzstan, arguing that Russia and the United States disagreed about the significance
of democratic elections there.9
In testimony in November 2010, Assistant Secretary Blake appeared to emphasize U.S. security
interests when he stated that “Central Asia plays a vital role in our Afghanistan strategy…. A
stable future for Afghanistan depends on the continued assistance of its Central Asian neighbors,
just as a stable, prosperous future for the Central Asian states depends on bringing peace, stability
and prosperity to Afghanistan.” Appearing at the same hearing as Blake, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense Robert Sedney stated that “from the Department of Defense perspective …
our focus is on the support for the effort in Afghanistan, but that is accompanied by the longer-
term security assistance projects, including a variety of training efforts in areas from
counterterrorism to counternarcotics that are building capabilities in those countries that are
important for reasons well beyond Afghanistan.”10
Recent contacts between President Obama and Secretary Clinton and Central Asian leaders have
included:

5 U.S. Senate, Committee on Armed Services, Hearing on Worldwide Security Threats, Statement of James R. Clapper
Director, National Intelligence Office of the Director of National Intelligence
, February 16, 2012.
6 U.S. Department of State, Robert O. Blake, Jr., Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, U.S.
Policy Towards Central Asia
, Carnegie Endowment for Peace, July 30, 2010. See also U.S. Department of State,
Robert O. Blake, Jr., Remarks: U.S. Policy in Central Asia, Forum of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, January 25,
2012.
7 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia, Hearing: U.S.
Engagement in Central Asia, Testimony by Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Central and South Asian
Affairs, U.S. Department of State
, July 24, 2012
8 U.S. Department of State, Office of the Spokesman, On-the-Record Briefing: Assistant Secretary for South and
Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake on Developments in Central Asia
, September 22, 2010.
9 Joshua Kucera, “State Department Touts Russia Reset’s Positive Role in Central Asia,” Eurasianet, September 23,
2010.
10 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global
Environment, Hearing on the Emerging Importance of the U.S.-Central Asia Partnership, Testimony of Robert O.
Blake, Jr., Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs
, and Testimony of Robert Sedney, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense,
November 17 2010.
Congressional Research Service
4

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

• The President met on April 11, 2010, with Kazakh President Nursultan
Nazarbayev on the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, DC.
A joint statement reported that they “pledged to intensify bilateral cooperation to
promote nuclear safety and non-proliferation, regional stability in Central Asia,
economic prosperity, and universal values.” President Obama encouraged
Kazakhstan to fully implement its 2009-2012 National Human Rights Action
Plan. President Nazarbayev agreed to facilitate U.S. military air flights along a
new trans-polar route that transits Kazakhstan to Afghanistan, and President
Obama praised Kazakh assistance to Afghanistan.11
• Secretary Clinton visited Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan in early
December 2010. In Kazakhstan, she participated in the OSCE Summit (see
below, “Kazakhstan and the Presidency of the OSCE”). She also met briefly with
Tajik President Rahmon and Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov
on the sidelines of the Astana Summit. In Uzbekistan, she signed an accord on
scientific cooperation as one means, she explained, to further U.S. engagement
with the country.
• President Obama telephoned President Karimov on September 28, 2011, to thank
him for Uzbekistan’s cooperation in stabilization efforts in Afghanistan, and
reportedly to urge him to facilitate the transit of U.S. and NATO cargoes into and
out of Afghanistan.
• During her October 22-23, 2011, visit to Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, Secretary
Clinton discussed the U.S. “New Silk Road Vision” (see below, “Trade and
Investment”) to turn Afghanistan into a regional transportation, trade, and energy
hub linked to Central Asia. She also warned the presidents of both countries that
restrictions on religious freedom could contribute to rising religious discontent.
• President Obama met with President Nazarbayev at the nuclear security summit
in Seoul, South Korea, in March 2012, where President Obama hailed
Kazakhstan’s efforts to secure nuclear materials inherited from the former Soviet
Union.12
Post-September 11 and Afghanistan
After the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, then-Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State B. Lynn Pascoe testified that the former Bush Administration realized 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.13 All
the Central Asian states soon offered overflight and other assistance to U.S.-led anti-terrorism

11 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Joint Statement on the meeting between President Obama and
Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev
April 11, 2010.
12 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Remarks by President Obama and President Nursultan Nazarbayev
of the Republic of Kazakhstan Before Bilateral Meeting
, March 26, 2012; Joint Statement of the Presidents of the
Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and the United States of America Regarding the Trilateral
Cooperation at the Former Semipalatinsk Test Site
, March 26, 2012.
13 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 Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, June 27,
2002.
Congressional Research Service
5

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

coalition operations 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 had tried to reach some accommodation with the
Taliban). In 2005, however, Uzbekistan rescinded its basing agreement with the United States.
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have maintained their basing support for NATO peacekeeping
operations, and Kyrgyzstan for U.S. and NATO operations, in Afghanistan. In 2009, most Central
Asian states agreed to facilitate the air and land transport of U.S. and NATO non-lethal (and later
of lethal) supplies to Afghanistan as an alternative to land transport via increasingly volatile
Pakistan (see “Security and Arms Control” below). They also have provided aid and established
increased trade and transport links with Afghanistan.
In October 2010, Kazakh President Nazarbayev announced that the country would send some
officers to ISAF headquarters in Afghanistan. After the Kazakh Majlis (lower legislative
chamber) approved sending military personnel to support ISAF on May 18, 2011, the Taliban
reportedly issued a threat two days later to retaliate against Kazakhstan for supporting ISAF. After
bombings occurred at security offices on May 17 and 24, 2011 (see below, “Error! Reference
source not found.
”), the Kazakh Senate (upper legislative chamber) rejected the bill approved by
the lower chamber. The Senate explained its action as a response to widespread public opposition
to sending military personnel to Afghanistan.
In 2012, most of the states approved the reverse transit of supplies and equipment out of
Afghanistan.
Support for Operation Iraqi Freedom
Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan were the only Central Asian state that joined the “coalition of the
willing” in 2003 that endorsed U.S.-led coalition military operations in Iraq. Uzbekistan
subsequently decided not to send troops to Iraq. In August 2003, Kazakhstan deployed some two
dozen troops to Iraq who served under Polish command and carried out water-purification,
demining, and medical activities. They pulled out in late 2008.
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. Some observers argue that, in the longer 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.14 Despite this criticism, President

14 See also CRS Report RL30294, Central Asia’s Security: Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests, by Jim Nichol.
Congressional Research Service
6

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Nazarbayev successfully pushed for Kazakhstan to hold the presidency of the OSCE in 2010 (see
below).
The State Department in 2006 included Central Asia in a revamped Bureau of South and Central
Asian Affairs. According to former 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.15
Other observers, however, criticized the move, arguing that it threatened to deemphasize efforts to
integrate the region into European institutions and that ties with Central Asia would become an
afterthought to ties with South Asia.16
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 in 2006 and 2009 to Ukraine—which hindered gas supplies transiting Ukraine to
European customers—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. An existing Interstate Oil and Gas Transport to Europe (INOGATE) program was
supplemented in 2004 and 2006 by a Baku Energy Initiative and Astana Energy Ministerial
Declaration to diversify energy supplies. One project involved the proposed Nabucco pipeline,
which would transport Caspian region gas to Austria (see “Energy Resources,” below).
In June 2007, the EU approved a new “Central Asian strategy” for enhanced aid and relations for
2007-2013. It 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. Under the strategy, the EU set
up offices in each regional state and pledged regional assistance of $1 billion. EU emissaries hold
dozens of meetings and seminars each year with the Central Asian states on such issues as human
rights, civil society development, foreign policy and assistance, trade and investment,
environmental and energy cooperation, and other issues.17

15 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. The State Department appointed a Senior Advisor on
Regional Integration in the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, Robert Deutsch, who focused on bolstering
trade and transport ties between South and Central Asia.
16 Zeyno Baran, “Energy Supplies in Eurasia and Implications for U.S. Energy Security,” Nixon Center, September 27,
2005.
17 European Commission, Regional Strategy Paper for Assistance to Central Asia for the Period 2007-2013, June 2007;
European Commission, External Relations Directorate, Central Asia DCI Indicative Program 2011 – 2013, September
2010; Into Eurasia: Monitoring The EU’s Central Asia Strategy, Center For European Policy Studies, February, 2010.
European External Action Service, Delegation of the EU to Kazakhstan, Joint Press Release Following the EU-Central
Asia Ministerial Meeting in Tashkent
, April 7, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
7

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Russia’s Role
During most of the 1990s, successive U.S. administrations generally viewed a democratizing
Russia as serving as a role model in Central Asia. Despite growing authoritarian tendencies in
Russia during the presidencies of Vladimir Putin (2000-2008) and Dmitriy Medvedev (2008-
2012), successive U.S. administrations have emphasized that Russia’s counter-terrorism efforts in
the region broadly support U.S. interests. At the same time, successive administrations have
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 vitiated.
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. In the later part of the 2000s, however, Russia
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. This
stance included efforts to persuade Kyrgyzstan to close its U.S. airbase. Such a stance appeared
paradoxical to U.S. officials, since Russia (and China) benefitted from anti-terrorism operations
carried out by U.S. (and NATO) forces in Afghanistan. Closer U.S.-Russia relations that
developed since 2009 appear to have included some Russian cooperation with U.S. and NATO
stabilization efforts in Afghanistan.
During the 1990s, Russia’s economic decline and demands by Central Asia caused it to reduce its
security presence, a trend that Vladimir Putin appeared determined to reverse during his first two
terms as president (2000-2008). 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.
Despite these moves, Russia appeared determined to maintain a military presence in Tajikistan. It
has retained from the Soviet period the 201st motorized infantry division of about 5,000 troops
subordinate to Russia’s Volga-Ural Military District. Some Russian officers reportedly help
oversee these troops, many or most of whom are ethnic Tajik noncommissioned officers and
soldiers. Thousands of Tajik Frontier Force border guards receive support as necessary from the
201st division.18 Russia’s efforts to formalize a basing agreement with Tajikistan dragged on for
years, as Tajikistan endeavored to charge rent and assert its sovereignty. In October 2004, a 10-
year 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 (some Russian border advisors remained). In October 2009, visiting
President Rahmon reportedly urged then-President Medvedev to pay rent on Russia’s base
facilities in Tajikistan, but Moscow only agreed to consider the issue when the basing agreement
came up for renewal. At a meeting in Dushanbe in September 2011, then-President Medvedev
announced that he and Rahmon had made progress in reaching agreement on extending the basing

18 The Military Balance, London: International Institute of Strategic Studies, March 7, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
8

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

agreement for another 49 years, and that an accord would be signed in early 2012. Some media
reported that Tajikistan was calling for up to $300 million in annual rent payments, while Russia
continued to reject making any such payments. Also at the meeting, the two presidents agreed that
the number of Russian border advisors reportedly would be reduced from 350 to 200, and that
they would more closely cooperate with the Tajik border force. President Rahmon met with newly
inaugurated President Putin in Moscow on the sidelines of a CIS summit in mid-May 2012, and
the two leaders agreed to continue the apparently contentious discussions on extending the basing
agreement.
In a seeming shift toward a more activist role in Central Asia, in April 2000, Russia called for the
signatories of the CST to approve the creation of rapid reaction forces to combat terrorism and
hinted that such forces might launch preemptive strikes on Afghan terrorist bases. These hints
elicited U.S. calls for Russia to exercise restraint. Presidents Clinton and Putin agreed in 2000 to
set up a working group to examine Afghan-related terrorism (this working group later broadened
its discussions to other counter-terrorism cooperation; it has continued to meet under the Obama
Administration). 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 (this
small force of 3,000 to 5,000 troops has held exercises and supposedly is dedicated to border
protection; in 2009 it was supplemented by a larger 20,000-troop rapid reaction force with a
supposedly wider mission).19 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 as a result of the establishment of a U.S. airbase in Kyrgyzstan after the September 11,
2001, attacks (see “The Manas Airbase” 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 base is a few miles from the U.S.-led coalition’s airbase. Russia attempted
to entice Kyrgyzstan in early 2009 to close the Manas airbase by offering the country hundreds of
millions of dollars in grants and loans. However, after Kyrgyzstan agreed to continued U.S. use of
the airbase in mid-2009 as a “Transit Center,” Russia reneged on some of this funding and
requested that Kyrgyzstan grant Moscow rights to another airbase near Uzbekistan’s border.
Uzbekistan denounced this plan, and it appeared to be put on hold. With the U.S.-Russia “reset”
of relations, Russia’s opposition to the continued operation of the Manas Transit Center
seemingly diminished, but in May 2012, the Russian Foreign Ministry hailed a statement by
President Atambayev that he intended not to renew the lease on the U.S. Transit Center.
Besides Russia’s military presence in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, Russia’s 2009 National Security
Strategy called for the country to play a dominant role in Caspian basin security. Russia’s Caspian
Sea Flotilla has been bolstered by troops and equipment in recent years. A security cooperation
agreement signed at a Caspian littoral state summit on November 18, 2010, states that Caspian
basin security is the exclusive preserve of the littoral states. Some observers have viewed this
agreement as reflecting Russia’s objections to the U.S. Caspian Guard program and other
maritime security initiatives (see below, “Security and Arms Control”).20
Taking advantage of Uzbekistan’s souring relations with many Western countries in 2005 (see
below, “The 2005 Violence in Andijon, Uzbekistan”), Russia signed a Treaty on Allied Relations

19 CEDR, February 25, 2010, Doc. No. CEP-950282.
20 CEDR, November 19, 2010, Doc. No. CEP-4002.
Congressional Research Service
9

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

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 rejoined the CST Organization
(CSTO; see below) in June 2006. Uzbekistan declined to participate in rapid reaction forces
established in June 2009 because of concerns that the forces could become involved in disputes
between member states. On June 20, 2012, Uzbekistan informed the CSTO that it was suspending
its membership in the organization, including because the CSTO was ignoring its concerns.
However, Uzbek officials stated that the country would continue to participate in the CIS air
defense system and other military affairs. According to some observers, the withdrawal of Central
Asia’s largest military from the CSTO highlighted the organization’s ineffectiveness.21 In June
2012, President Karimov visited China and met with President Hu Jintao, and the two leaders
signed a strategic partnership agreement. Commenting on this accord in September 2012,
President Karimov stated that “China is indeed the most reliable strategic partner for us.”22 Some
observers also have suggested that Uzbekistan’s withdrawal from the CSTO is linked to
positioning for a greater role in the U.S.-NATO Northern Distribution Network (NDN) for the
transit of equipment and materials to and from Afghanistan (see below, “The Northern
Distribution Network to Afghanistan”).
Many observers suggest that the appreciative attitude of Central Asian states toward the United
States in the early 2000s—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. Also, Russia and China are pledging
security support to the states to get them to forget their pre-September 11, 2001, dissatisfaction
with Russian and Chinese efforts. Russia also encourages the leaders to believe that the United
States backs democratic “revolutions” to replace them. Lastly, Russia has claimed that it can
ensure regional security after the planned drawdown of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan by
the end of 2014.
As Russia’s economy improved in the 2000s—as a result of increases in oil and gas prices—
Russia reasserted its economic interests in Central Asia. Russia endeavored to counter Western
business and gain substantial influence over energy resources through participation in joint
ventures and by insisting that pipelines cross Russian territory. Although Russia experienced a
decline in gross domestic product (GDP) in 2009 and only modest growth in GDP in 2010-2011
as a result of shocks associated with the global economic downturn, it has appeared that Russia
has tried to maintain economic leverage in the region, including by giving stabilization grants and
loans to Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. In other areas, such as commodity trade, Russian economic
influence has been reduced, although it is still significant. In 2009, the number of Central Asian
migrant workers in Russia decreased, and the country imposed quotas on the number of migrant
laborers. The numbers of migrant workers from Central Asia have increased since then, and
worker remittances from Russia remain significant to the GDPs of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and
Uzbekistan.
Russia’s efforts to maintain substantial economic interests in Central Asia face increasing
challenges from China, which has substantially increased its aid and trade activities in the region.
Perhaps to use institutional means to constrict growing Chinese economic influence, a Russia-
Belarus-Kazakhstan customs union began operating in mid-2011. Russian officials and state-
owned media have called for the customs union to expand to include Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

21 “Interview: Analyst Says Uzbekistan's Suspension Shows CSTO Is 'Irrelevant,'” RFE/RL, June 29, 2012.
22 CEDR, September 13, 2012, Doc. No. CEP-950016.
Congressional Research Service
10

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

In an article in early October 2011, Prime Minister Putin called for boosting Russian influence
over Soviet successor states through the creation of an economic, political, and military “Eurasian
Union.”
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 one-quarter of the population and in Kyrgyzstan
they make up over one-seventh. More ethnic Turkmen reside in Iran and Afghanistan—over 3
million—than in Turkmenistan. Sizeable numbers of ethnic Tajiks reside in Uzbekistan, and 7
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.
The Central Asian states have wrangled over water-sharing, border delineation, trade and transit,
and other issues:
• Tajikistan’s relations with Uzbekistan have been problematic, including
disagreements about water-sharing, Uzbek gas supplies, the mining of borders,
and environmental pollution. In July 2008, the head of the Tajik Supreme Court
asserted that Uzbek security forces had bombed the Supreme Court building the
previous summer as part of efforts to topple the government. In late 2010,
Uzbekistan began a transit slowdown and other economic measures to pressure
Tajikistan to halt building the Rogun power plant (see below, “Trade and
Investment”).
• Turkmenistan’s relations with Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan have been tense.
Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan have rival claims to some Caspian Sea oil and gas
fields. Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have vied for regional influence and argued
over water sharing. In 2002, the Turkmen government accused Uzbek officials of
conspiring to overthrow it.
• The Kyrgyz premier rejected claims by Karimov in 2005 that Kyrgyzstan had
provided training facilities and other support for the Andijon militants. Karimov
again accused Kyrgyzstan in late May 2009 of harboring terrorists that had
attacked across the border. After the April 2010 coup in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan
tightened border controls with this country, greatly harming its economy. Conflict
between ethnic Uzbeks and ethnic Kyrgyz in southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010
further strained relations between the two countries (see below, “The 2010 Ethnic
Clashes in Kyrgyzstan”). On July 17, 2012, border guards exchanged gunfire at a
Congressional Research Service
11

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan border post, reportedly killing a guard on each side.
Uzbekistan responded by restricting border crossings at this post.
The leaders of regional powers Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have held occasional bilateral
summits in recent years. In 2010, President Nazarbayev visited Uzbekistan, and most recently, on
September 6-7, 2012, President Karimov visited Kazakhstan for a bilateral summit. One observer
suggested that this summit was an effort by the two major regional powers to join together to spur
greater region-wide integration, including common responses to security threats such as terrorism
and instability in Afghanistan. The two leaders also aimed to bolster significant trade ties and to
raise joint concerns about regional water-sharing.23
Regional cooperation remains stymied by tensions among the states, despite their membership in
various cooperation groups such as the CST Organization (CSTO), 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 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 efforts to combat international terrorism and drug trafficking.
Although the charter of the CSTO does not mention internal or external peacekeeping functions,
other agreements have provided for such activities. Neither former Kyrgyz President Akayev nor
former President Bakiyev apparently requested the aid of the CSTO during the coups that
overthrew them (on the latter coup, see below, “Recent Developments in Kyrgyzstan”), and the
CSTO has appeared inactive during other crises in the region. In September 2008, its members
agreed to condemn Georgia’s “aggression” against its breakaway South Ossetia region but
refused a request by Russia to extend diplomatic recognition to South Ossetia and Georgia’s
breakaway region of Abkhazia. At a CSTO meeting in June 2010 to consider an urgent request by
interim Kyrgyz President Roza Otunbayeva for troops to assist in quelling ethnic violence, a
consensus could not be reached and the members only agreed to provide equipment. At a CSTO
summit in December 2011, all the members signed a pledge that no non-member military bases
could be established on their territories unless all members agreed. They also reportedly agreed
on detailed procedures for intervening in domestic “emergency” situations within a member state
at the behest of the member.24
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, renamed the SCO, and in 2003 the SCO Regional Anti-
Terrorism Structure (RATS) was set up there. Several military and security exercises have been
held. According to some reports, in recent years Russia has discouraged the holding of major
SCO military exercises as well as the strengthening of economic ties within the SCO, although
Moscow has been amenable to cooperation within the SCO on regional oil and gas issues.25

23 Richard Weitz, “Nazarbayev-Karimov Summit Imparts New Momentum to Kazakhstani-Uzbekistani Relations,”
Eurasia Daily Monitor, September 14, 2012.
24 Interfax, December 21, 2011.
25 CEDR, November 8, 2011, Doc. No. CEP-6008.
Congressional Research Service
12

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Perhaps marking new initiatives, an SCO summit will be held in Beijing and a “Peace Mission-
2012” military exercise will take place in Tajikistan in June 2012.
In late 2007, the Central Asian states prevailed on the U.N. to set up a Regional Center for
Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia (UNRCCA) to facilitate diplomatic and other cooperation
to prevent internal and external threats to regional security. With its headquarters in Ashkhabad,
the Center is headed by a special representative of the U.N. secretary-general. The Center was
intended to take on some of the duties of the U.N. Tajikistan Office of Peace-Building, which had
been established after the Tajik Civil War and was being closed. The Center’s mandate includes
monitoring regional threats and working together and with other regional organizations to
facilitate peacemaking and conflict prevention. Priority concerns include cross-border terrorism,
organized crime and drug trafficking, regional water and energy management, environmental
degradation, and stabilization in Afghanistan. The Center has held several regional conferences
on such issues as Aral Sea desiccation, water-sharing, and Afghanistan. The Center’s special
representative visited Kyrgyzstan several times in the wake of the April 2010 coup to discuss
U.N. aid to the interim government to ensure peace and stability.
In May 2009, the OSCE established a Border Management Staff College in Dushanbe to train
officers from OSCE member and partner countries, including Afghanistan.
Terrorism and Conflict in Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan long argued that there were few terrorists within the country but this stance began to
change in late 2003 with the establishment of an Anti-Terrorist Center as part of the National
Security Committee. Shocking many Kazakhs, it reported the apprehension in late 2004 of over a
dozen members of the obscure Islamic Jihad Group/Union of Uzbekistan (reportedly an offshoot
of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan). It alleged that the group had ties to Al Qaeda; had cells
in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Russia; and had been involved in attacks in Uzbekistan. In mid-
2006, authorities detained 15-30 members of the banned Hizb ut-Tahrir group. In April 2007, 16
alleged terrorists were arrested on charges of planning attacks against security and police forces.
In February 2008, security forces arrested five members of an alleged Salafi Jihadi Jamaat, whose
leader had received training in Syria. In September 2009, six alleged terrorists were sentenced to
12-17 years in prison for planning to attack foreign oil companies and non-Muslims. In late 2009,
the Kazakh National Security Committee reported that the government had prevented four
terrorist attacks in 2008 and three in 2009.
Several suicide bombings and other alleged terrorist attacks occurred in Kazakhstan in 2011,
although the government appeared reluctant to release many details and trials of alleged terrorists
were usually closed to outside observers. A suicide bombing took place in a security office on
May 17, 2011, in the city of Aktoke, and a car bombing took place at another security office on
May 24 in Astana. On the night of June 30, alleged terrorists killed three police officers in the
village of Shubarshi in Aktobe Region. Apparently shaken by these and other bombings and
terrorist attacks, President Nazarbayev directed changes to the law on religion that were duly
approved in late September. On October 31, two explosions occurred in the city of Atyrau, one at
the regional administration building and the other a suicide bombing in a residential area. A week
after these bombings, two police officers were killed in Almaty by alleged terrorists. On
November 12, in the town of Taraz, one person killed several police and attacked a security
office. The same day, an attempted explosion reportedly was foiled and an attack on a roadblock
was carried out in Taraz, resulting in additional police deaths. The Jund al-Khilafah (Soldiers of
the Caliphate) claimed responsibility for the bombings in Atyrau and may have been involved in
Congressional Research Service
13

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

other incidents. Kazakhstan’s Office of the Prosecutor-General claimed that Jund al-Khilafah was
formed in mid-2011 by Kazakh citizens Renat Khabibuly, Orynbasarov Unasov, and Damir
Nabiyev, was allied with the Taliban, was headquartered in Pakistan’s tribal area, and was
dedicated to “waging a jihad on the territory of Kazakhstan.” At the end of November 2011,
Kazakhstan banned Jund al-Khilafah as a terrorist organization.26 Jund al-Khilafah also has
claimed responsibility for attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan. In April 2012, 47 alleged
members or accomplices of the Jund al-Khilafah were sentenced for the October 31 attacks.
On December 16, 2011, energy sector workers on strike since May 2011 and others reportedly
extensively damaged and burned government and other buildings and clashed with police in the
town of Zhanaozen, in the Mangistau Region of Kazakhstan, resulting in 16 deaths and dozens of
injuries, the government reported. Some observers alleged that there were more casualties and
that the riots were triggered or exacerbated by police firing on the demonstrators (video posted on
the Internet appeared to back this claim). Protests and violence also spread to other areas of the
region. President Nursultan Nazarbayev declared a state of emergency and curfew in the town on
December 17 and sent military and security forces to the region. He claimed that the violence was
pre-planned and financed, perhaps from abroad, that the rioters had been given alcohol and
money, and that police had shot into the crowds only in self-defense. At the same time, he
charged that local officials had not heeded the grievances of the striking oil workers and had
given him misinformation. In response, he fired the head of Kazmunaigaz, the state-owned
energy firm; ousted his son-in-law as head of the national fund that owned Kazmunaigaz;
replaced the governor of the region; and pledged new employment and retraining for oil workers
who had been fired during their long strike. Critics charged that he took these moves to protect
his popularity and that of the ruling political party during an electoral campaign (see above). The
government reported that dozens of individuals have been detained so far in connection with the
protests.
A trial against 37 individuals charged with crimes associated with the Zhanaozen riot opened in
late March 2012. The bulk of the defendants were striking workers and youths, who were accused
of initiating the violence, although five police officers were being tried for abuses in quelling the
unrest. In late April 2012, the Human Rights Watch NGO called for the trial to be suspended
while an investigation of alleged torture and other abuses against those on trial is carried out. In
June 2012, a court sentenced about one-half of the defendants to 3-7 years in prison and gave
suspended sentences, pardons, or acquittals to the rest. Another trial of 12 suspects resulted in
four being sentenced to 4-7 years and the others being acquitted, pardoned, or amnestied. Other
arrests have occurred (see also below, “Recent Developments in Kazakshtan”). The Kazakh
government has argued that it has convicted some police for excesses during the riot, disciplined
some government officials, given unemployed workers new jobs, and otherwise admitted that it
mishandled the labor strife in Zhanaozen.27
In early July 2012, President Nazarbayev called for introducing new provisions in the criminal
code to facilitate the prosecution of strike organizers. At a meeting with policemen on July 12,
2012, President Nazarbayev criticized them for not taking preventive measures against terrorism,

26 CEDR, November 9, 2011, Doc. No. CEP-950038; Interfax, November 30, 2011.
27 Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Washington, D.C., “Response to the Human Rights Watch Report,” News
Bulletin
, September 18, 2012. The response is to Human Rights Watch, Striking Oil, Striking Workers: Violations of
Labor Rights in Kazakhstan’s Oil Sector
, September 4, 2012. The News Bulletin claims that HRW ignored “facts” put
forward by the Kazakh government, but HRW states that the Kazakh government did not respond to its request for
information and alleges that the government attempted to block its investigation.
Congressional Research Service
14

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

and stated that “over 100 crimes connected with terrorism were committed in Kazakhstan in
2011-12. As a result, dozens of [terrorists and policemen] have died.... And we have to admit the
fact that radical and extremist groups are putting enormous pressure on the government and
society.”28 According to a Kazakh Security Council official, over 300 individuals have been
convicted in Kazakhstan on charges of terrorism since 2005.29 In late July 2012, one policeman
was killed and one wounded in Almaty, and the alleged assailants later engaged in a gun battle
with security forces and most were killed. In mid-August 2012, a gun battle with alleged terrorists
took place in Almaty, reportedly resulting in the deaths of several alleged terrorists and the
capture of others. Authorities claimed that these terrorists were linked to an explosion at a house
in a village near Almaty in July and to the killing of several individuals whose bodies were found
in a park near Almaty. The terrorists were planning widespread operations, according to the
authorities. In early September, 2012, a bomb-maker blew himself up in Atyrau Region, leading
police to engage in a gun battle with other members of the alleged group, killing five of them.
Some observers have warned that these recent incidents may mark the revival of terrorist actions
in Kazakhstan after several months of seeming quietude.
Incursions and Violence in Kyrgyzstan
Several hundred Islamic extremists and others harboring in Tajikistan and Afghanistan 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.30 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 Osama
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 2010 Ethnic Clashes in Kyrgyzstan
Deep-seated tensions between ethnic Kyrgyz and ethnic Uzbeks in southern Kyrgyzstan erupted
on June 10-11, 2010. Grievances included perceptions among some ethnic Kyrgyz in the south
that ethnic Uzbeks controlled commerce, discontent among some ethnic Uzbeks that they were
excluded from the political process, and views among many Bakiyev supporters in the south that
ethnic Uzbeks were supporting their opponents. Allegedly, fighting began between rival ethnic-
based gangs at a casino in the city of Osh and quickly escalated, fuelled by rumors of rapes and
other atrocities committed by each side. The fighting over the next few days resulted in an official

28 CEDR, July 13, 2012, Doc. No. CEP-950108.
29 CEDR, June 27, 2012, Doc. No. CEP-950051.
30 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.
Congressional Research Service
15

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

death toll of 426 (of which 276 were ethnic Uzbeks and 105 were ethnic Kyrgyz) and over 2,000
injuries. The violence also resulted in an initial wave of 400,000 refugees and IDPs and the
destruction of thousands of homes and businesses in Osh and Jalal-abad. Otunbayeva appealed to
Russia for troops to help end the fighting, but the CSTO, meeting in emergency session on June
14, 2010, agreed to only provide humanitarian assistance. The Kyrgyz interim government
variously blamed Bakiyev’s supporters, Uzbek secessionists, Islamic extremists, and drug
traffickers for fuelling the violence.31 There were some reports that elements of the police and
armed forces in the south defied central authority and were involved in the violence and
subsequent attacks on ethnic Uzbeks.
Although critical of the Kyrgyz government, Uzbekistan did not intervene militarily or permit its
citizens to enter Kyrgyzstan to join in the June fighting (according to some reports, the Uzbek
government had considered military intervention). After some hesitation, the Uzbek government
permitted 90,000 ethnic Uzbeks to settle in temporary camps in Uzbekistan. Virtually all had
returned to Kyrgyzstan by the end of June.32 According to Assistant Secretary of State Eric
Schwartz, “the Government of Uzbekistan acted quickly and constructively in response to the
humanitarian crisis, [and] cooperated closely with U.N. agencies, the International Committee of
the Red Cross and non-governmental organizations. These efforts helped many people.”33 While
also stating that “Uzbekistan … behaved admirably” by hosting the refugees, Assistant Secretary
Blake has testified that “although there were no reports of force to promote returns, reports of
psychological pressure, monetary incentives, threats of loss of citizenship, coercion and/or
encouragement to participate in the June 27 referendum and concerns about family members who
remained in Kyrgyzstan all may have factored into the rapid repatriation of those who were
displaced.” Presumably, Kyrgyz officials were involved in these actions.34
An OSCE informal foreign ministers’ meeting in July 2010 endorsed sending a 52-member police
advisory group for an initial period of four months to help facilitate peace in southern
Kyrgyzstan. It was proposed that the mission could later be extended and another 50 advisors
deployed.35 Concerns about the presence of the OSCE police advisory group from the Osh mayor
and other Kyrgyz ultranationalists delayed its deployment. On November 18, 2010, the OSCE
Permanent Council reached agreement with Kyrgyzstan on an alternative one-year police training
program.
International donors meeting in Bishkek on July 27, 2010, pledged $1.1 billion in grants and
loans to help Kyrgyzstan recover from the June violence. The United States pledged $48.6 million
in addition to FY2010 and FY2011 planned aid. In addition, the United States provided $4.1
million in humanitarian assistance to Kyrgyzstan immediately after the April and June events.36

31 Bruce Pannier, “Kyrgyzstan: Anatomy of a Conflict,” RFE/RL, July 02, 2010.
32 UNHCR, Final Report on UNHCR Emergency Operations in the Republic of Uzbekistan, July 23, 2010.
33 U.S. Department of State, Opening Statement of Assistant Secretary Schwartz, June 29, 2010.
34 Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Hearing on Instability in Krygyzstan: The International
Response, Testimony by Robert O. Blake, Assistant Secretary Of State For South And Central Asia, July 27, 2010.
35 OSCE, Press Release, OSCE and Kyrgyzstan Agree on Principles for OSCE Police Advisory Group, July 16, 2010;
OSCE Chairperson Says Presence of Police Advisory Group in Kyrgyzstan will Facilitate Strengthening Trust,
Stability and Order in Country
, July 22, 2010.
36 U.S. Department of State, Office of the Spokesman, United States Announces Additional Support for Kyrgyz
Republic
, July 27, 2010; U.S. Embassy, Bishkek, Opening Statement by Daniel Rosenblum, Coordinator of U.S.
Assistance to Europe and Eurasia and Tatiana Gfoeller, U.S. Ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic: High-Level Donors
Meeting, “Emergency Response to the Kyrgyz Republic, Reconciliation and Recovery,”
July 27, 2010; Commission on
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
16

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Analyst Martha Olcott has warned that the discrimination by ethnic Kyrgyz against ethnic Uzbeks
has contributed in some cases to young ethnic Uzbeks being attracted to Islamic extremism.37
On January 10, 2011, a Kyrgyz commission issued its findings on the causes of the June 2010
violence in southern Kyrgyzstan between ethnic Kyrgyz and ethnic Uzbeks. The report largely
blamed ethnic Uzbek “extremists” and some supporters of former Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek
Bakiyev for fomenting the violence. The report also blamed interim government officials of
ineptness in dealing with the escalating ethnic tensions.
On May 2, 2011, an international commission formed under the leadership of Kimmo Kiljunen,
the Special Representative for Central Asia of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, released its
report of findings regarding the June 2010 violence. The commission concluded that the Kyrgyz
provisional government failed to adequately provide security and leadership to stifle rising
tensions and incidents in May or to minimize the effects of the June ethnic violence. The
commission also raised concerns that security forces were directly or indirectly complicit in the
violence (according to the commission, most police, military, and other security personnel are
ethnic Kyrgyz). The commission called for the Kyrgyz government to condemn ultra-nationalism
and proclaim that the state is multi-national, promote gender equality, provide special rights for
Uzbek language use in the south, train security forces to uphold human rights and not subvert
state interests through parochial loyalties, impartially investigate and prosecute those responsible
for the violence, establish a truth and reconciliation commission, and provide reparations.38 The
Kyrgyz government has rejected the finding that security forces were complicit in the violence,
continued to blame the former Bakiyev regime and Islamic extremists for fomenting the clashes,
and stated that ethnic Uzbeks shared substantial blame for committing human rights abuses.
Some observers have raised concerns that what they view as inadequate efforts by the Kyrgyz
government to foster ethnic reconciliation could result in new ethnic unrest. Among such
concerns, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), a terrorist group currently based in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, reportedly has vowed actions against the Kyrgyz government for its
alleged abuses against ethnic Uzbeks in southern Kyrgyzstan. Former President Otunbayeva and
other observers have warned that some ethnic Uzbek youth in the south are being recruited by the
IMU.39
Attacks by Jama’at Kyrgyzstan Jaish al-Mahdi in 2010-2011
According to Kyrgyz security authorities, Jamaat Kyrgyzstan Jaish al-Mahdi (Kyrgyz Army of
the Righteous Ruler), an ethnic Kyrgyz terrorist group, bombed a synagogue and sports facility

(...continued)
Security and Cooperation in Europe, Hearing on Instability in Kyrgyzstan: The International Response, Testimony of
Robert O. Blake,
July 27, 2010.
37 Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Hearing on Instability in Krygyzstan: The International
Response, Testimony of Martha Brill Olcott, July 27, 2010.
38 OSCE, Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry into the Events in Southern Kyrgyzstan in
June 2010
, May 2, 2011.
39 Neil Melvin, Promoting a Stable and Multiethnic Kyrgyzstan: Overcoming the Causes and Legacies of Violence,
Open Society Foundations, March 7, 2011; .Bruce Pannier, “The Growing Threat of Militants in a Corner of Central
Asia,” RFE/RL, April 23, 2011; “Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan Says It Has New Leader and Can Attack Targets in
Central Asia,” Report News: Central Asia, Issue 631, Institute of War and Peace Reporting, October 13, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
17

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

and attempted to bomb a police station in late 2010, and killed three policemen in early 2011. The
group also allegedly planned to attack the U.S. embassy and U.S. military Manas “transit center.”
Kyrgyz security forces reportedly killed or apprehended a dozen or more members of the group,
including its leader, in January 2011. Ten alleged members of the group were put on trial in May
2011. At least some group members allegedly had received training by the Caucasus Emirate
terrorist group in Russia, but also in late 2010 the group reportedly pledged solidarity with the
Taliban.
Terrorism and Conflict in Tajikistan
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 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. To encourage the peace process, the United States
initially pledged to help Tajikistan rebuild. Some observers point to events in the city of Andijon
in Uzbekistan (see “The 2005 Violence in Andijon, Uzbekistan” 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 2010 Attacks in Tajikistan
In late August 2010, over two dozen individuals sentenced as terrorists escaped from prison in
Dushanbe and launched attacks as they travelled to various regions of the country. Many of these
individuals had been opposition fighters during the Tajik Civil War and had been arrested in
eastern Tajikistan during government sweeps in 2009. In early September 2010, a suicide car
bombing resulted in over two dozen deaths or injuries among police in the northern city of
Khujand. An obscure terrorist group, Jamaat Ansarullah, allegedly the Tajik branch of the IMU,
claimed responsibility. Some escapees and their allies, allegedly including IMU terrorists,
attacked a military convoy in the Rasht Valley (formerly known as Karategin) east of Dushanbe
on September 19, 2010, reportedly resulting in dozens of deaths and injuries to government
forces. Heavy fighting in the Rasht Valley over the next month reportedly led to dozens of
additional casualties among government forces.
In early January 2011, the Tajik Interior (police) Ministry reported that its forces had killed
former Tajik opposition fighter Alovuddin Davlatov, alias Ali Bedaki, the alleged leader of one
major insurgent group involved in the ambush in the Rasht Valley. Another leader of the ambush,
Abdullo Rakhimov, aka Mullo Abdullo—a former Tajik opposition paramilitary leader who
spurned the peace settlement and travelled to Afghanistan and Pakistan, where he allegedly
Congressional Research Service
18

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

maintained links with al Qaeda and the Taliban, and who reentered Tajikistan in 2009—was
reportedly killed by Tajik security forces on April 15, 2011.40 In September 2011, Jamaat
Ansarullah reportedly issued a directive to its followers in Tajikistan to kill pro-democracy
advocates, who by its definition were “unbelievers” even if they were practicing Muslims. In
December 2011, several dozen alleged IMU members said to be involved in the suicide car
bombing in Khujand received prison sentences ranging from 8 years to life. Several defendants
had reported that they had been tortured to agree to false changes. In September 2012, a court
sentenced 12 more alleged participants to terms ranging from five to 24 years. They had been
charged with being members of Abdullo’s terrorist group and of Jamaat Ansarullah, and of
receiving training in al-Qaeda camps in Pakistan.41 According to some observers, underlying
causes of the violence may be related to the failure of the Rahmon government to share power
and economic benefits with minority groups and clans, and more immediate causes may be
related to the increasing repressiveness and exclusiveness of the government and the ability of
disaffected populations to obtain countervailing armed support from relatives and others abroad.42
The 2012 Instability in Mountainous Badakhshan
On July 21, 2012, a national security official, General Abdullo Nazarov, was killed near the city
of Khorog, the capital of the Mountainous Badakhshan Autonomous Region in eastern Tajikistan.
According to some reports, the region is a major transit point for drugs and other goods trafficked
from Afghanistan and for weapons and money smuggled to terrorist groups in Afghanistan. The
government responded by launching security operations to force the local “criminal group” to
surrender. The government asserted that the “criminals” were led by Tolib Ayembekov, a former
UTO fighter who was the head of an Interior Ministry border guard troops unit in the Ishkohim
District (Khorog is in this district), bordering Afghanistan. The government also alleged that the
“criminals” had ties with organized crime groups throughout the world, and were linked to
members of the IMU, who were infiltrating from Afghanistan to support the “criminals.”43
Ayembekov denied that he was responsible for Nazarov’s death. Over 3,000 security personnel
entered Khorog on July 24, and subsequent fighting resulted in 17 casualties among the security
personnel and 30 among the alleged “criminals,” according to the government. Forty-one
surviving “criminals” were arrested. Although the government officially acknowledged only one
civilian casualty, some observers reported that dozens of civilians had been killed or injured.
Among the forces deployed to the region were extra border guards who sealed the Tajik-Afghan
border to prevent the Tajik “criminals” from escaping across the border or receiving assistance
from groups in Afghanistan. Some information about the fighting leaked out of the region despite
the “accidental” severing of Internet and cell phone connections to the region. The government
declared a unilateral ceasefire the next day. On July 26, 2012, the U.S. Embassy raised concerns
about reports of civilian casualties and urged the government not to suppress media reporting in

40 Lola Olimova and Nargis Hamrabaeva, “Tajik Authorities Struggle to Quell Militants,” Report News: Central Asia,
Institute for War and Peace Reporting, October 4, 2010; Tilav Rasulzoda and Parvina Khamidova, “New Militant Force
in Tajikistan?” Report News: Central Asia, Institute for War and Peace Reporting, October 21, 2010; CEDR, January
12, 2011, Doc. No. CEP-950136; Dilafruz Nabiyeva, “Mullo Abdullo Killed,” Central Asia Online, April 15, 2011.
41 CEDR, September 11, 2012, Doc. No. 950123.
42 Lola Olimova and Nargis Hamrabaeva, “Tajik Authorities Struggle to Quell Militants,” Report News: Central Asia,
Institute for War and Peace Reporting, October 4, 2010; Umida Hashimova, “The Islamist Insurgency in Tajikistan,”
Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, October 12, 2010; Tilav Rasulzoda and Parvina Khamidova, “New Militant Force in
Tajikistan?” Report News: Central Asia, Institute for War and Peace Reporting, October 21, 2010; CEDR, January 12,
2011, Doc. No. CEP-950136.
43 CEDR, August 8, 2012, Doc. No. CEP-950127.
Congressional Research Service
19

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

the region. In early August 2012, Ayembekov pledged fealty to the Rahmon government and
readiness to prove his innocence in a court of law.
The ceasefire was broken by the government early on August 22, when security forces attacked
the home of a popular former UTO fighter, the invalid Imomnazar Imomnazarov, and killed him.
His death led some protesters to attack the administration building in Khorog a few hours later,
and police allegedly fired at them, injuring three. A large memorial service for Imomnazarov was
held the next day in Khorog. A ceasefire agreement was reached between the government and
local officials and prominent citizens later that evening. In accordance with the agreement, some
security personnel subsequently were withdrawn from the city, but many have stayed in the
region to prepare for a visit by Rahmon in late September 2012.
Some observers have questioned the Tajik government’s official explanations of events in
Khorog. One local commentator has argued that General Nazarov was acting at the behest of a
group in the Tajik security service to seize control over lucrative smuggling operations or
otherwise was involved in extorting money.44 A think tank in Dushanbe asserted that the Tajik
government deployed security forces in the region after Ayembekov threatened to enlist up to
1,000 terrorists massed across the border in Afghanistan to help him if the government moved to
arrest him.45 Several accounts have suggested by many residents of Khorog had taken up arms on
July 24 in opposition against the deployment of security forces. Accusations that Ayembekov was
a “criminal” must be squared with the fact that Khorog is the location of the regional Border
Guard Training Center, where the International Organization for Migration has used State
Department funding to carry out training for Tajik and Afghan border guards, including on-site at
regional border posts. Seeming to refer to this situation, Assistant Secretary Blake in August 2012
stated that the United States supports Tajik government efforts in the region “to address some of
the corrupt activities of their own border guards and others who are helping to facilitate some of
this [narcotics] trade.”46
Other observers have speculated that at least part of the reason for the government actions in
Mountainous Badakhshan may have been to secure the loyalty of regional officials in the run-up
to presidential elections planned in 2013. During the deployment of security forces to the region,
the regional IRP head was detained and later found dead, a regional IRP office was sacked, and
another IRP official was detained and transferred to Dushanbe. Before he was killed,
Imomnazarov speculated that Nazarov had falsely reported to his superiors that the UTO fighters
were planning to launch a coup against Rahmon, and that this was the main cause of the
government security actions.
Terrorism and Conflict 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

44 CEDR, August 25, 2012, Doc. No. CEP-950018; Sébastien Peyrouse, “Battle on Top of the World: Rising Tensions
in Tajikistan’s Pamir Region,” On Wider Europe, German Marshall Fund, August 2012.
45 Interfax, August 3, 2012.
46 U.S. Department of State, On-the-Record Briefing With International Media, Robert O. Blake, Jr., Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, Almaty, Kazakhstan, August 15, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
20

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

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 suicide bombings and other attacks were launched
in Uzbekistan, reportedly killing 47. An obscure Islamic Jihad Group of Uzbekistan (IJG; Jama’at
al-Jihad al-Islami, a breakaway part of the IMU) claimed responsibility.47 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 Najmiddin
Kamolitdinovich 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 suicide
bombings were aimed against Uzbek and other “apostate” governments.48
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 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. Many freed inmates then joined others in storming government buildings.49
President Karimov flew to the city to direct operations, and reportedly had restored order by late
on May 13.50 On July 29, 439 people who had fled from Uzbekistan to Kyrgyzstan were airlifted

47 The IJG changed its name to the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU) in 2005.
48 See also CRS Report RS21818, The 2004 Attacks in Uzbekistan: Context and Implications for U.S. Interests, by Jim
Nichol.
49 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 and other disgruntled citizenry. 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. A declassified Defense Intelligence Agency
memorandum prepared soon after the events stated that “no credible information indicates extremist groups participated
in the attacks,” but stressed that evidence was not definitive on this point. See Uzbekistan: Review of Information on
Unrest in Andijon, 12-13 May 2005
, Info Memo, 5-0549/DR, July 30, 2005 (the memo is part of the Rumsfeld Archive,
see below). For alternative views on terrorist involvement and casualties, see Shirin Akiner, Violence in Andijon, 13
May 2005: An Independent Assessment
, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, July 2005; AbduMannob Polat, Reassessing
Andijan: The Road to Restoring U.S.-Uzbek Relations
, Jamestown Foundation, June 2007; and Donald Rumsfeld,
Known and Unknown (New York: Penguin Group Publishers, 2011). See also James Kirchick, “Did Donald Rumsfeld
Whitewash Massacre In Uzbekistan?” RFE/RL, May 13, 2011
50 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.
Congressional Research Service
21

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

to Romania for resettlement processing, after the United States and others raised concerns that
they might be tortured if returned to Uzbekistan.51
The United States and others in the international community repeatedly called for an international
inquiry into events in Andijon, which the Uzbek government rejected as violating its sovereignty.
In November 2005, the EU Council approved a visa ban on 12 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.”52 In October
2007 and April 2008, the EU Council suspended the visa ban for six months but left the arms
embargo in place. In October 2008, the EU Council praised what it viewed as some positive
trends in human rights in Uzbekistan and lifted the visa ban, although it left the arms embargo in
place.53 In October 2009, it lifted the arms embargo.
At the first major trial of 15 alleged perpetrators of the Andijon unrest in late 2005, the accused
all confessed and asked for death penalties. They testified that they were members of Akramiya, a
branch of HT launched in 1994 by Akram Yuldashev that allegedly aimed to use force to create a
caliphate in the area of the Fergana Valley located in Uzbekistan. Besides receiving assistance
from HT, Akramiya was alleged to receive financial aid and arms training from the IMU. The
defendants also claimed that the U.S. and Kyrgyz governments helped finance and support their
effort to overthrow 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 involvement, and many observers criticized the trial as appearing stage-
managed. Reportedly, 100 or more individuals were arrested and sentenced, including some
Uzbek opposition party members and media and NGO representatives.54 Partly in response, the
U.S. Congress tightened conditions on aid to Uzbekistan.
The Summer 2009 Suicide Bombings and Attacks in Uzbekistan
On May 25-26, 2009, a police checkpoint was attacked on the Kyrgyz-Uzbek border, attacks took
place in the border town of Khanabad, and four bombings occurred in Andijon in the commercial
district, including at least one by suicide bombers. Several deaths and injuries were alleged,
although reporting was suppressed. Uzbek officials blamed the IMU, although the IJU allegedly
claimed responsibility. President Karimov flew to Andijon on May 31. In late August 2009,
shooting took place in Tashkent that resulted in the deaths of three alleged IMU members and the
apprehension of other group members. The Uzbek government alleged that the group had been

51 See also CRS Report RS22161, Unrest in Andijon, Uzbekistan: Context and Implications, by Jim Nichol.
52 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.
53 Council of the European Union, 2824th General Affairs Council Meeting, Press Release, October 15-16, 2007; 2864th
and 2865th General Affairs and External Relations Council Meetings, Press Release, April 29, 2008; 2897th General
Affairs and External Relations Council Meeting, Press Release, October 13, 2008. Some international human rights
groups protested against a visit by the head of the Uzbek state security service—who had been subject to the visa ban
lifted by the Council—to Germany in late October 2008. He reportedly advised German officials on IJU activities in
Central Asia.
54 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.
Congressional Research Service
22

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

involved in the 1999 explosions and in recent assassinations in Tashkent. In early December
2009, the Andijon regional court reportedly convicted 22 individuals on charges of involvement
in the May 2009 events, and sentenced them to prison terms ranging from 5 to 18 years.
U.S. Designation of the IMU and IJU as Terrorist Organizations
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 IMU co-
head Namanganiy was probably killed.55
Former CIA Director Porter Goss testified in March 2005 that the IJG/IJU “has become a more
virulent threat to U.S. interests and local governments.”56 In May 2005, the State Department
designated the IJG/IJU as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and Specially Designated Global
Terrorist, and in June, the U.N. Security Council added the IJG/IJU to its terrorism list.57 In June
2008, IJG head Jalolov and his associate Suhayl Fatilloevich Buranov were added to the U.N.
1267 Sanctions Committee’s Consolidated List of individuals and entities associated with bin
Laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban. Also, the U.S. Treasury Department ordered that any of their
assets under U.S. jurisdiction be frozen and prohibited U.S. citizens from financial dealings with
the terrorists.58 IMU head Yuldashev reportedly was killed in late August 2009 in Pakistan by a
U.S. predator drone missile, and Jalalov allegedly similarly was killed in late September 2009.
In July 2011, an Uzbek citizen on an expired student visa was arrested on charges of being
directed by IMU terrorists to assassinate President Obama. He confessed and was sentenced in
2012. Two other ethnic Uzbeks were arrested in the United States in early 2012 on charges of
collaborating with the IJU. One of the Uzbeks had been granted refugee status after he fled the
Uzbek government crackdown in Andijon in 2005. He was arrested at a U.S. airport while
allegedly planning to join IJU terrorists abroad.
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 respect for 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 counter-terrorism. According to some

55 U.S. Department of State, Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003, April 2004.
56 U.S. Senate, Committee on Armed Services, Testimony of the Director of Central Intelligence, The Honorable Porter
J. Goss, March 17, 2005.
57 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.
58 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Press Release: Treasury Designates Leadership of the IJU Terrorist Group, June
18, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
23

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

allegations, the former Bush Administration may have sent suspected terrorists in its custody to
Uzbekistan for questioning, a process termed “extraordinary rendition.”59 Although not verifying
such transfers specifically to Uzbekistan, the former Bush Administration stated that it received
diplomatic assurances that transferees would not be tortured. Several citizens of Central Asian
states who were held in U.S. custody at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base have been returned to
their home countries.60
All of the Central Asian leaders have declared that they are committed to democratization. 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 then-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.”
Despite such democratization pledges, the states have made little progress, according to the State
Department. In testimony in May 2011, Assistant Secretary Blake stated that leaders in Central
Asia “are suspicious of democratic reforms, and with some exceptions have maintained tight
restrictions on political, social, religious, and economic life in their countries…. Kyrgyzstan has
been the primary exception in Central Asia. The democratic gains recently made in Kyrgyzstan …
are cause for optimism.”61 The non-governmental organization Freedom House has rated all of
Central Asia’s governments except Kyrgyzstan’s as among the most repressive in the world in
terms of political rights and civil liberties, with Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan being rated as
similar to North Korea. Kyrgyzstan was alone in being ranked “partly free,” since it had a
competitive presidential election in October 2011, although the country continues to have
problems with the treatment of national minorities, due process, torture, and judicial
independence.62
During the 1990s and early 2000s, almost all the leaders in Central Asia held onto power by
orchestrating extensions of their terms, holding suspect elections, eliminating possible
contenders, and providing emoluments to supporters and relatives (the exception was the leader
of Tajikistan, who had been ousted in the early 1990s during a civil war). After this long period of
leadership stability, President Askar Akayev of Kyrgyzstan was toppled in a coup in 2005, and
President Niyazov of Turkmenistan died in late 2006, marking the passing of three out of five

59 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.
60 House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight,
Hearing: City on the Hill or Prison on the Bay? The Mistakes of Guantanamo and the Decline of America’s Image,
May 6, 2008; Hearing: Rendition and the Department of State, June 10, 2008. At least three Tajiks returned to
Tajikistan from Guantanamo were then tried and imprisoned on charges of belonging to al Qaeda or the IMU.
61 Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Hearing on Central Asia and the Arab Spring: Growing
Pressure For Human Rights? Testimony of Robert Blake, Jr., Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian
Affairs
, May 11, 2011.
62 “Combined Average Ratings: Independent Countries,” Freedom in the World 2012, Freedom House, at
http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2012.
Congressional Research Service
24

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Soviet-era regional leaders from the scene. Soviet-era leaders Nazarbayev and Karimov remain in
power, and Tajikistan has been headed since the civil war by Rahmon, the Soviet-era head of a
state farm.
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. Peaceful transitions to more or less democratic political systems have
not occurred and appear unlikely for some time to come (although the peaceful October 2011
Kyrgyz presidential election may offer some hope; see below). 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.63
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 Niyazov, and has given orders on how
citizens should live and dress. In Turkmenistan, it appears that Soviet-era elites have retained
power following Niyazov’s death and have eschewed meaningful democratization. Kyrgyzstan’s
transition after Akayev’s 2005 ouster appeared to involve the gradual increase in influence of
southern regional/clan ethnic Kyrgyz elites linked to Bakiyev until April 2010, when northern
regional/clan ethnic Kyrgyz elites reasserted influence by ousting then-President Bakiyev. An
interim president held office until an election was held on October 30, 2011, the first contested
electoral transfer of power in Central Asia. This election was won by Almazbek Atambayev, who
represents northern interests (see below).
Recent Developments in Kazakshtan
A bill approved by the legislature in May 2010 proclaimed Nazarbayev the “Leader of the
Nation” (“Yelbashy”), providing him with a political role if he retired from the presidency. The
bill also provided the president and his family with lifetime immunity from prosecution.
Nazarbayev refused to sign the bill into law, but did not veto it or return it to the legislature, so it
went into effect without his signature. He claimed that he did not veto the bill because he was
sure the legislature would over-ride his veto.
At the end of January 2011, President Nazarbayev announced that he would move up the date of
the next scheduled presidential election from 2012 to April 3, 2011. Many opposition politicians
decried the holding of a sudden presidential election. They claimed that they would not be able to
mount adequate campaigns in only a few weeks, while Nazarbayev’s supporters had already
mobilized to carry out the petition drive. During a three-week registration period, three candidates
besides the president were able to satisfy the many requirements necessary to run (two of these
also had run in the 2005 presidential election), while other more well-known opposition
politicians refused to run, were unable to satisfy the various requirements, or were denied
registration. All of the presidential candidates proclaimed that they wanted Nazarbayev to win,
and one candidate announced on voting day that he had cast his ballot for the incumbent. The

63 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.
Congressional Research Service
25

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Kazakh Central Electoral Commission (CEC) reported that 89.99% of 9.3 million voters turned
out and that Nazarbayev was reelected with 95.55% of the vote. According to OSCE monitors,
“needed reforms for holding genuine democratic elections still have to materialize as this election
revealed shortcomings similar to those” in previously monitored elections. The OSCE reported
“serious irregularities” during voting, “including numerous instances of seemingly identical
signatures on voter lists and cases of ballot box stuffing,” and judged vote counting as even more
problematic.64 The U.S. Embassy in Astana, Kazakhstan, congratulated Nazarbayev on his
reelection and “welcome[d] Kazakhstan’s commitments to further liberalize the political
environment and believe[d] that continued improvements in the electoral process are critical
components.”65
For the third time during his period of rule, Kazakhstan’s President Nazarbayev issued a decree
on November 16, 2011, dismissing the legislature and setting early elections for January 15,
2012. Of the 107 seats in the lower legislative chamber (the Majlis), 98 were to be allocated
through party list voting, with the remaining 9 members selected by a presidential advisory body.
Critics complained that the holding of an early election appeared aimed to hinder the political
opposition from preparing for the election. Seven parties were registered to run. According to the
final results issued by the CEC, the ruling Nur Otun Party received 80.99% of 7.02 million votes
cast and won 83 seats, Ak Zhol received 7.47% of the vote and 8 seats, and Communist People’s
Party received 7.19% and 7 seats. Critics charged that both of these minor parties were pro-
Nazarbayev. OSCE monitors judged that the election did not meet fundamental principles of
democratic elections. They reported that the legal framework for holding democratic elections
was inadequate, only selected parties were permitted to run, voters had no assurance of which
candidates on the winning lists might end up with seats, the open exchange of views during the
campaign was restricted, and there were “significant irregularities” on voting day, including ballot
box stuffing and “significant changes” by higher electoral bodies to vote totals reported at the
precinct level.66
In early March 2012, President Nazarbayev threatened that Kazakhstan might cease inviting the
OSCE to monitor elections. Kazakh officials have maintained that other election monitors,
including those from the CIS, have considered Kazakhstan’s elections as free and fair.
Even before the election was over, observers reported that government arrests and harassment of
journalists and opposition party politicians were increasing. In late January 2012, one prominent
opposition newspaper editor was arrested on charges that were two years old, and Vladimir
Kozlov, the head of the unregistered Alga Party, was arrested on charges of inciting social
disorder, ostensibly referring to the events in Zhanaozen. Several leading politicians of the
National Social Democratic Party Azat and others have been arrested and fined following protests
that have been held every month since late January 2012 against alleged electoral violations and
the government crackdown in Zhanaozen. In mid-March 2012, the European Parliament approved
a resolution that expressed indignation for the incarceration of opposition politicians and
journalists since the election on political grounds and called for their release. The resolution urged

64 OSCE, Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, International Election Observation, Republic Of
Kazakhstan, Early Presidential Election, 3 April 2011: Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions
, April 4,
2011.
65 U.S. Embassy, Astana, Kazakhstan, Press Release: U.S. Embassy Statement, April 4, 2011.
66 OSCE, ODIHR, Republic Of Kazakhstan, Early Parliamentary Elections, 15 January 2012: OSCE/ODIHR Election
Observation Mission Final Report
, April 3, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
26

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

the Kazakh government to reverse the recent further deterioration of human rights by undertaking
reforms to ensure future pluralistic elections, to safeguard a free press, and to permit NGOs to
operate freely. The resolution also “strongly condemn[ed] the violent crackdown by the police
against demonstrators in Zhanaozen,” and called for an independent and credible investigation of
the incident.67 On April 19, 2012, journalist Lukpan Akhmedyarov was attacked and wounded in
western Kazakhstan. He has alleged that the attackers are linked to local officials. In mid-August
2012, Assistant Secretary Blake praised the January legislative election as marking progress in the
creation of a “multi-party democracy,” but raised hopes that the pending trial of Alga Party leader
Kozlov would be fair, impartial, and open, and not jeopardize this democratization progress.68
The trial began on August 16, 2012.
In early September 2012, Information and Culture Minister Darkhan Mynbay announced that the
government was implementing procedures covering emergency situations that would forbid
broadcasters and publishers from releasing nonofficial information. He argued that the ban was
necessary to quell “rumors” and criticism of emergency responses. Emergency situations were
described as including traffic accidents and natural disasters. President Nazarbayev’s daughter
and member of the Majilis (lower legislative chamber), Dariga Nazarbayeva, subsequently
criticized the proposal by the government to control news, and Reporters Without Borders, a
NGO, called for the government instead to work out plans for greater transparency of
information.
Recent Developments in Kyrgyzstan
After two days of popular unrest in the capital of Bishkek and other cities that appeared to be
linked to rising utility prices and government repression, opposition politicians ousted the
Bakiyev administration on April 8, 2010, and declared an interim government. Roza Otunbayeva,
a former foreign minister and ambassador to the United States, was declared the acting prime
minister. The interim leadership formed a commission on May 4 to draft a new constitution to
establish a system of governance with greater balance between the legislative and executive
branches. Deep-seated tensions between ethnic Kyrgyz and ethnic Uzbeks in southern Kyrgyzstan
erupted on June 10-11, 2010 (see above, “The 2010 Ethnic Clashes in Kyrgyzstan”).
Despite the violence, the interim government felt strongly that the country’s stability would be
enhanced by going ahead with a June 27, 2010, referendum on the draft constitution. According
to the government, the turnout was 72% and over 90% approved the draft constitution. A limited
OSCE observer mission reported that vote-counting procedures seemed problematic in the polling
stations visited.69 Under the law implementing the new constitution, Otunbayeva was designated
the president, although it also was stipulated that she could not run when presidential elections
were held at the end of 2011.
A legislative election was held on October 10, 2010. Twenty-nine political parties participated for
the 120 legislative seats. OSCE monitors reported that the election “constituted a further
consolidation of the democratic process and brought the country closer to meeting its

67 European Parliament, Resolution of 15 March 2012 on Kazakhstan, 2012/2553(RSP), March 15, 2012.
68 U.S. Department of State, On-the-Record Briefing With International Media:Robert O. Blake, Jr., Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs
, August 15, 2012.
69 OSCE, Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, The Kyrgyz Republic Constitutional Referendum, 27
June 2010: OSCE/ODIHR Limited Referendum Observation Mission Report
, June 27, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
27

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

international commitments on democratic elections.” Morten Høglund, the head of the short-term
OSCE observer mission, stated that “this election reflected the will of the people of the Kyrgyz
Republic.” The mission’s preliminary report stated, however, that vote-counting was poorly
organized and that tabulation procedures were not followed properly in half of the polling stations
visited and in one-third of territorial electoral commissions.70 Five parties were determined to
have overcome a 5% vote hurdle to gain seats. The Ata Jurt Party, linked to former Bakiyev
officials and to ultra-nationalists, received the largest percentage of 1.7 million votes, 8.7%, and
28 seats; the Social-Democratic Party (SDP; Otunbayeva’s party) won 7.8% of the vote and 26
seats; the opposition Ar Namys won 7.57% of the vote and 25 seats; the centrist opposition
Respublika won 6.93% of the vote and 23 seats; and the pro-government Ata Mekan won 5.49%
of the vote and 18 seats. About 35% of 1.7 million votes went to parties that did not pass the vote
hurdle to gain seats. Since no one party obtained over one-half of the legislative seats, they
negotiated on forming a ruling coalition. President Obama hailed the election as demonstrating
“important and positive attributes of a genuine democracy.”71
After some time, Respublika in December 2010 succeeded in forming a coalition with the SDP
and the Ata Jurt Party, controlling 77 seats out of 120. The coalition nominated SDP official
Almazbek Atambayev as prime minister and he was approved by the legislature. In a speech to
the legislators and other public comments, Atambayev pledged to solidify a “strategic
partnership” with Russia, and to seek to join the Russia-Kazakh-Belarus customs union. He also
called for close relations with the United States, and pledged not to challenge the U.S.-Kyrgyz
accord on the airbase.
Kyrgyzstan’s presidential election was held on October 30, 2011, the first involving the peaceful
contested transfer of presidential power in Central Asia. Sixteen candidates were on the ballot,
most of whom ran as independents without a specific party endorsement. The interim Prime
Minister, Almazbek Atambayev, temporarily stepped down so that he could run. After a lengthy
vote-counting period, the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) announced final election results
on November 12, 2011, proclaiming Atambayev as the winner with 62.52% of 1.86 million votes
cast. Monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) judged that
the election had “shortcomings” that needed to be addressed “to consolidate democratic practice
in line with international commitments.” They stated that although there was a wide choice of
candidates and the electoral campaign “was open and respected fundamental freedoms,” there
were “significant irregularities ... during the counting and [the] tabulation of votes,” including
interference by outsiders in the vote count, pre-signed voting tallies, failure to post voting tallies,
and alteration of completed tallies.72
Atambayev was sworn in as president on December 1, 2011. The next day, the Social Democratic
Party acted to form a new coalition, and on December 15, a coalition was formed comprising the
Social Democratic Party, Respublika, Ata-Meken, and Ar-Namys. The coalition held 92 seats,
leaving the Ata-Jurt Party, with 28 seats, as the opposition in the legislature. On December 23, the
legislature approved Respublika Party member Omurbek Babanov as the prime minister along

70 OSCE, Kyrgyz Republic: Parliamentary Elections, 10 October 2010, Statement of Preliminary Findings and
Conclusions
, October 11, 2010.
71 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Statement by President Obama on the Parliamentary Elections in
Kyrgyzstan
, October 11, 2010.
72 OSCE, Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), Kyrgyz Republic Presidential Election, 30
October 2011, OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission: Final Report
, January 10, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
28

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

with a slate of ministers. The distribution of power in the new government appeared to revivify
northern dominance over southern interests, intensifying regional tensions.
In the face of a growing dispute between Prime Minister Babanov and ruling coalition members
Ata-Meken and Ar-Namys—which accused the government of malfeasance and corruption—the
two parties withdrew from the coalition on August 22, 2012, triggering the fall of the Babanov
government. On August 27, President Atambayev called for the Social Democratic Party to form
a new coalition. The Social Democratic Party, Ar-Namys and Ata-Meken, along with a few
deputies from the other two parties, formed a new ruling coalition on September 3, and two days
later the legislature approved a cabinet government led by former chief of the presidential staff
Jantoro Satybaldiyev.
Recent Developments in Turkmenistan
A new presidential election law was adopted in May 2011 that was problematic in ensuring a free
and fair election, according to the OSCE. Problems included hurdles to candidate registration,
restrictions on freedom of expression that limited campaigning, and an inadequate process for
complaints and appeals.73 In October 2011, the Turkmen Central Electoral Commission (CEC)
announced that a presidential election would be held on February 12, 2012. During the last two
weeks of December 2011, initiative groups nominated candidates for president and gathered
10,000 signatures in a majority of the country’s districts in order to gain registration of their
candidates. The National Revival Movement, a civic association headed by the president,
nominated President Berdimuhamedow as its candidate. In January 2012, the CEC registered
eight candidates. All of Berdimuhamedow’s challengers were ministerial officials or state plant
managers. Based on an inadequate legal and political framework to ensure a pluralistic election,
the OSCE decided not to formally monitor the election. The CEC announced that
Berdimuhamedow won over 97% of the vote and that turnout was over 96%.
Recent Developments in Uzbekistan
In a speech in November 2010, President Karimov called for several constitutional changes which
were approved by the legislature and signed into law by the president in April 2011. One of the
changes provides for the political party that controls a majority of seats in the lower legislative
chamber to have the right to nominate a candidate for prime minister (all existing political parties
are pro-Karimov). Procedures also are outlined for the legislature to hold a vote of no confidence
in the prime minister. The prime minister is given responsibility for appointing regional
administrators, a power formerly lodged with the president. Another amendment specifies that in
the event the president is incapacitated, the chairman of the Senate will serve as the interim head
of state pending the holding of a presidential election within three months. Some skeptics have
linked the constitutional changes to government concerns that civil discontent could become
manifest as it did in several Middle Eastern countries in early 2011. Others suggest that since
some of the ostensible reform efforts predate the “Arab Spring,” they are linked to infighting
within the elite. Perhaps supporting the latter view, in mid-July 2011 the legislature passed a joint
resolution criticizing an economic report delivered by the prime minister.74

73 OSCE, ODIHR, Republic Of Turkmenistan Presidential Election, 12 February 2012: Needs Assessment Mission
Report
, January 3, 2012.
74 CEDR, July 22, 2011, Doc. No. CEP-950121.
Congressional Research Service
29

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

On December 5, 2011, the legislature approved amendments to the constitution reducing the
presidential term from seven to five years. The change was hailed as advancing democratization,
but was a reversion to the pre-2002 term in office. In March 2012, the legislature approved
holding legislative elections on December 28, 2014, and the presidential election in March or
April 2015. Some observers suggest that President Karimov might consider succession
contingencies at that time, such as designating a possible heir.
In April 2012, Uzbek legislators and officials visiting the United States reported that bills had
been introduced to provide for the legislature to hold hearings to question the prime minister, to
hold a vote of non-confidence in the government, and to strengthen the rights of NGOs.75 U.S.
analyst Martha Olcott has argued that Uzbek society is becoming more religiously traditional
(although not radical), and that politics will probably be influenced by these societal views, so
that a secular liberal democratic political system may not soon emerge.76
Human Rights
According to the NGO Human Rights Watch, Central Asian governments in 2011 fell short in
respect for human rights in many areas:
• Kazakhstan failed to carry out long-promised human rights reforms in the year
following its OSCE chairmanship (see below). Instead, its rights record suffered
further setbacks. Control over the prison system was transferred from the Justice
Ministry back to the Interior Ministry, putting prisons back in police control, and
a new restrictive religion law was adopted. Websites were blocked and legal
amendments limiting media freedoms remained. The government continued to
restrict freedom of assembly.
• In Kyrgyzstan, torture and arbitrary detention in the aftermath of the June 2010
ethnic violence remained rampant and largely unpunished, with ethnic Uzbeks in
the south being particularly vulnerable to police torture and other violations of
the rule of law. Freedom of media generally improved in 2011, but authorities at
times attempted to limit freedom of expression.
• The human rights situation in Tajikistan remained poor. The government
persisted with enforcing a repressive law on religion and introduced new
legislation further restricting religious expression. Authorities continued to
restrict freedom of the media, including by harassing and arresting journalists.
The judiciary remained neither independent nor effective.
• Turkmenistan remained one of the world’s most repressive countries. Media and
religious freedoms were subject to draconian restrictions, and human rights
defenders faced constant threat of government reprisal. International observers
expressed concern about allegations of widespread torture and ill-treatment, and
of disappearances in custody.

75 Carnegie Endowment, Current Developments in Uzbekistan’s Parliament, April 26, 2012, at
http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/04/26/current-developments-in-uzbekistan-s-parliament/acih.
76 Martha Olcott, In the Whirlwind of Jihad (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment, 2012).
Congressional Research Service
30

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

• Uzbekistan’s human rights record remained appalling. Security officers were
responsible for the endemic torture of prisoners and detainees. Authorities
continued to target civil society activists, opposition members, and journalists,
and to persecute religious believers who worshiped outside state-approved
channels. Freedom of expression was severely limited. The Uzbek government
increased the presence of security forces across the country and widened its
already-tight control over the internet.77
On human trafficking:
• The State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report 2012 reports that
Turkmenistan is a source, and to a lesser extent, destination, country for forced
labor and sex trafficking. The Turkmen government does not fully comply with
the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, but is making
significant efforts to do so. The government made some progress in convicting
traffickers and registering an NGO-operated shelter, but did not demonstrate
increasing efforts to identify and protect victims, so the country was raised from
“Tier 3” status (the government was given this least satisfactory rating the
previous year) to the still-cautionary “Tier 2 Watch List.”
• Uzbekistan was downgraded in 2006 to “Tier 3.” No U.S. aid sanctions were
reported as a direct result of the Tier 3 designation. In 2008, Uzbekistan was
found to have made some modest progress in addressing human trafficking
problems, and was upgraded to the “Tier 2 Watch List.” According to the State
Department, Uzbekistan in 2008 had adopted an anti-trafficking law and
demonstrated modest improvement in its victim assistance and protection efforts.
In June 2012, the State Department reported that Uzbekistan is a source country
for human trafficking for forced labor and sex, and that the government
demonstrated negligible progress in ceasing forced labor, including forced child
labor, in the annual cotton harvest. The State Department also stated that
Uzbekistan did not make efforts to investigate or prosecute government officials
suspected to be complicit in forced labor, so would remain on the “Tier 2 Watch
List” of countries that do not fully comply with the minimum standards for the
elimination of trafficking.78
• Tajikistan was downgraded from “Tier 2” to the “Tier 2 Watch List” in 2007
through 2009, a ranking that reflected growing concern that the country was
faltering in its efforts to combat trafficking. In 2010, it was upgraded slightly to
“Tier 2,” a status it retained in 2011, because the country was making significant
efforts … [to] comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of
trafficking.” In 2011, the State Department states, “the government continued to
make progress in reducing the use of forced labor in the annual cotton harvest.”
The government also convicted more traffickers in 2011 than previously.
However, the country was deemed to retain a “Tier 2” ranking because it did not
use its embassies in other countries to identify Tajik victims of trafficking or
devote funds for domestic shelters for trafficking victims.

77 World Report 2012, Human Rights Watch, January 22, 2012.
78 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 19, 2012. See also Ashley Cleek, “Uzbekistan: Police
Reportedly Regulating Sex Market,” Choihona—Eurasianet, May 9, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
31

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

• Kazakhstan was downgraded to the “Tier 2 Watch List” in 2010, even though it
was making significant efforts to eliminate trafficking, because the government
did not assist victims of forced labor and was complicit in the use of forced labor,
including to pick cotton. The Trafficking in Persons Report 2012 reported that the
Kazakh government continued to reduce the use of forced child labor in the
cotton harvest and to increase law enforcement efforts against human trafficking.
However, the State Department averred that Kazakhstan had not addressed the
issue of official complicity in trafficking, among other issues, so would retain its
“Tier 2” status as a country that does not fully comply with the minimum
standards for the elimination of trafficking but is making significant efforts to
comply.79
In 2009, the U.S. Department of Labor listed all the Central Asian states as countries that use
child labor to pick cotton. This list was meant to inform the choices made by the buying public. In
addition, on July 20, 2010, cotton from Tajikistan and Uzbekistan was added to a list that requires
U.S. government contractors purchasing products to certify that they have made a good faith
effort to determine whether forced or indentured child labor was used to produce the cotton.80 The
U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF) was permitted to monitor the Autumn 2011 cotton harvest, but
Uzbekistan continues to bar monitors from the U.N.’s International Labor Organization.
The Uzbek Ministry of Labor asserted in early September 2012 that the use of forced child labor
in the agricultural sector was not permitted in Uzbekistan, and that the cotton harvest will be
monitored to prevent the participation of school children. However, all cotton in the country is
produced on private “family farms,” where international legal norms permit children who are
members of farmers’ families to assist in chores, he stated.81
On religious freedom:
• The State Department’s International Religious Freedom Report for 2011 reports
that the Turkmen government “demonstrated a trend toward deterioration in
respect for and protection of the right to religious freedom.” While the
government generally respected the religious freedom of most registered
religious groups, it fined, raided, and detained members of unregistered and
minority religious groups. A new religion law has set onerous requirements for
the re-registration of religious groups, provided for government inspection of
religious literature, and banned religious ceremonies in government facilities.
The Annual Report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
(USCIRF; an advisory body) has called since 2000 for the State Department to
list Turkmenistan as a “Country of Particular Concern,” where severe violations
of religious freedom could result in U.S. sanctions.
• Since November 2006, the State Department has designated Uzbekistan a
“country of particular concern” (CPC), for severe religious and other human

79 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report 2012, June 19, 2012 (covers developments in 2011).
80 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human
Trafficking, The Department of Labor’s List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor, September 3, 2009;
Executive Order 13126, Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor, at
http://www.dol.gov/ILAB/regs/eo13126/main.htm.
81 CEDR, September 7, 2012, Doc. No. CEP-950095.
Congressional Research Service
32

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

rights violations that could lead to U.S. sanctions. However, since 2009, the State
Department has issued waivers for Uzbekistan, so that no U.S. sanctions have
been taken. In its most recent report, USCIRF reported that the Uzbek
government “harshly penalizes individuals for independent religious activity
regardless of their religious affiliation. A restrictive religion law facilitates the
government‘s control over all religious communities.... The government
continues to arrest Muslims and repress individuals, groups, and mosques that do
not conform to officially prescribed practices or that it claims are associated with
extremist political programs. ...Uzbek police and security forces continue to raid
and detain members of unregistered, and sometimes registered, religious groups
for peaceful religious activity.” In its most recent report in July 2012, the State
Department followed the recommendation of the Commission in again
designating Uzbekistan as a CPC, because the government “did not demonstrate
a trend toward improvement in respect for and protection of the right to religious
freedom.”
• In its March 2012 report, USCIRF assessed religious rights as further
deteriorating in Tajikistan, and for the first time recommended that the country be
designated a Country of Particular Concern (CPC), which could lead to U.S.
sanctions. USCIRF called for the U.S. government to step up engagement with
Tajikistan on religious freedom issues. The State Department may follow this
recommendation to designate Tajikistan as a CPC later in the year. The agency’s
July 2012 International Religious Freedom Report concurred with USCIRF that
religious rights had further deteriorated in Tajikistan during 2011. During this
period, new laws and penalties had been implemented, including prohibiting the
participation of children in public religious services and activities and increasing
fines for teaching religion without a permit and for producing, distributing,
importing, or exporting unapproved religious literature.
• The State Department’s International Religious Freedom Report reports that the
government demonstrated a trend toward deterioration in respect for and
protection of the right to religious freedom during 2011. A religion law passed in
October 2011 imposes stringent registration requirements on religious groups. A
new Religious Affairs Agency oversees the activities of religious groups and can
initiate action to ban a group that violates the law. Its activities include the
inspection and approval of religious literature.82
Kazakhstan and the Presidency of the OSCE
The 15th Ministerial Meeting of the OSCE in Madrid in late November 2007 decided that
Kazakhstan would hold the OSCE chairmanship in 2010, the first post-Soviet, Eurasian, Muslim-
majority country to host an OSCE summit. Kazakhstan’s then-Foreign Minister Marat Tazhin
pledged at the Ministerial Meeting that Kazakhstan would enact human rights reforms prior to
assuming the chairmanship and that during the chairmanship, Kazakhstan would ensure that
NGOs are able to participate in OSCE events and that ODIHR’s mandate is preserved.83

82 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Annual Report, March 2012; U.S. Department of State,
International Religious Freedom Report for 2011, July 30, 2012.
83 OSCE, 15th Ministerial Council Meeting, Address of Marat Tazhin, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Kazakhstan
, November 29, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
33

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Addressing the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE in Astana in June 2008, President
Nazarbayev stated that his country’s preparations for holding the chairmanship included the
elaboration of a blueprint he termed “the path to Europe,” which envisaged Kazakhstan’s
integration into Europe in the areas of energy, transport, technology transfers, education, culture,
and democratization.
Kazakhstan’s progress in meeting these pledges was mixed at best, according to most observers.
In early February 2009, President Nazarbayev approved changes to laws on the media, elections,
and political parties. Political parties that did not gain at least 7% of votes cast in a Majlis election
were accorded the right to participate in some legislative affairs; the number of signatures
necessary for registering a party for a Majlis election was reduced from 50,000 to 40,000; and
requirements for registering media were eased. Critics termed the changes minor.84 One positive
sign was an action by the constitutional court in February 2009 to strike down a proposed law that
would have tightened restrictions on religious freedom (however, the law later was tightened in
2011). In July 2009, changes to the media law were signed into law that restricted access to the
Internet; barred foreign broadcasts from “complicat[ing] or support[ing] the nomination or
election” of candidates or parties; and broadly banned media reporting that “interfere[s] with
election campaigns,” takes place during times when campaign news is not allowed, tries to
influence election results, or influences participation in strikes. ODIHR had urged the legislature
not to enact the changes.85
Kazakhstan assumed the chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) on January 1, 2010. It followed a varied agenda with emphasis on each of the
military/security, democratic/human rights, and economic/environmental “dimensions” or
“baskets” of activity of the OSCE. Kazakhstan stressed that it would emphasize several issues of
concern to Kazakhstan, Central Asia, and Russia, among them: bolstering nuclear disarmament;
continuing the “Corfu Process” dialogue on the future of European security (including discussion
of Russia’s draft European Security Treaty); appointing a Special Representative of the OSCE
Chairman to promote dialogue on protracted conflicts in the former Soviet Union; and supporting
several initiatives regarding Afghanistan.
At an informal OSCE foreign ministerial meeting in Almaty (Kazakhstan’s largest city) in July
2010, an agreement was reached to hold an OSCE heads of state and government summit on
December 1-2, 2010, in Astana (Kazakhstan’s capital), the first since the Istanbul summit in 1999.
Kazakhstan had strongly urged holding this summit to “modernize” the activities of the OSCE.
The United States earlier had raised concerns about the necessity of holding such a summit, but
received assurances from Kazakhstan and others that a summit would address substantive issues
of U.S. interest.86 At a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council (the main decision-making body;
it convenes weekly in Vienna) on November 15, 2010, Kazakh Foreign Minister and OSCE
Chairman-in-Office Kanat Saudabayev called for the upcoming summit agenda to include
enhancing the OSCE’s efforts in Afghanistan; bolstering early warning and conflict prevention
mechanisms; reaffirming the rule of law and the role of civil society; promoting cooperation

84 An Atmosphere of Quiet Repression: Freedom of Religion, Assembly and Expression in Kazakhstan, Human Rights
Watch, December 2008.
85 Human Rights in Kazakhstan: Seven Months before the OSCE Chairmanship, Human Rights Watch Memorandum,
Human Rights Watch, May 20, 2009.
86 Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Articles, OSCE 2010 Informal Ministerial: Kazakhstan
Persistence Earns A Summit In Astana
, by Winsome Packer, November 1, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
34

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

among international security organizations; and formulating an action plan to update the 1999
Vienna Document (provisions for confidence and security-building, including the exchange and
verification of information on armed forces, defense policies, and military activities).87
During three Review Conference meetings to prepare the agenda for the summit, the United
States stressed that in addition to the measures mentioned by Saudabayev, the agenda should
include reestablishing an OSCE Mission in Georgia; empowering ODIHR to better monitor
elections; and strengthening the powers of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media,
among other measures. At the same time, the United States reiterated that it did not see the need
for new treaties or institutions to safeguard European Security as urged by Russia.88 The United
States also criticized Kazakhstan’s efforts to exclude some civil society representatives from the
September 30-October 8, 2010, Review Conference held in Warsaw, Poland.89
According to many observers, the December 1-2, 2010, OSCE Summit accomplished a few of the
goals set by Kazakhstan but fell short on most. Summit participants could not agree on an action
plan, but issued the Astana Commemorative Declaration toward a Security Community. There
appeared to be some progress in bolstering Afghanistan’s security and development and in
reaffirming the centrality of democracy and human rights as core principles. The United States
and Russia clashed over the issue of Georgia’s territorial integrity, including whether Russia had
complied with ceasefire accords, and over Russia’s failure to carry out its pledge to withdraw
troops from Moldova. Lack of progress in resolving the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over the
breakaway Nagorno Karabakh also was mentioned by the United States as a reason the summit
could not agree on an action plan (however, a statement was issued calling for a settlement of the
conflict). Although the summit declaration called for building on the so-called Corfu process to
further European security cooperation, the United States and some other members of the OSCE
had objected to Russia’s call (supported by Kazakhstan) for a new European Security Treaty.
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 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.

87 OSCE Permanent Council, Countdown to the OSCE Summit: Statement by Mr. Kanat Saudabayev, Chairperson-in-
Office of the OSCE and Secretary of State and Minister for Foreign Affairs
, November 15, 2010.
88 United States Mission to the OSCE, Opening Plenary Session at the OSCE Review Conference, Vienna, Austria, As
delivered by Dr. Michael Haltzel, U.S. Head of Delegation, OSCE Review Conference
, October 18, 2010; Closing
Plenary Session of OSCE Review Conference in Vienna, Austria, As delivered by Dr. Michael Haltzel
, October 26,
2010.
89 United States Mission to the OSCE, OSCE Review Conference, Vienna, Austria, As delivered by Julie Raschka,
October 25, 2010; Catherine Fitzpatrick, “Turkmen Activists Denied Entry to OSCE Review Conference in Warsaw,”
Eurasianet, October 4, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
35

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

According to Crouch
• Kyrgyzstan became a “critical regional partner” in OEF, providing basing for
U.S. and coalition forces at Manas (in 2012, the U.S. Air Force reported that
there were about 1,500 U.S. troops and U.S. contractors and about 700 Kyrgyz
contractors at Manas).
• Uzbekistan provided a base for U.S. operations at Karshi-Khanabad (K2; just
before the 2005 pullout, U.S. troops reportedly numbered less than 900), a base
for German units at Termez (in 2012, The Military Balance reported that there
were 163 German troops at Termez), 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 (in 2012, media reported that there are
100 French troops based in Tajikistan).
• Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan provided overflight and other support.90
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 “reequipping the Armed Forces” of Uzbekistan, a pledge that appeared to
be repudiated by Uzbekistan following events in Andijon.
Programs and Assistance
In November 2010, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense David Sedney testified that “the focus
of the Department of Defense’s efforts in Central Asia today in the short term are the transport of
goods and equipment and personnel through the ground and air lines of communication through
Central Asia…. But beyond our focus on the immediate goals in Afghanistan, we also have long-
term security assistance goals in Central Asia. Our security assistance focuses on the
professionalization of the military, the border guards, counternarcotics forces and
counterterrorism forces.”91 Indicative of these goals, he mentioned that over 1,000 Central Asian
security personnel had been trained at the U.S.-German Marshall Center and that the U.S.
National Guard had provided training in civil-military relations (but not combat training)
throughout Central Asia as part of the National Guard State Partnership Program, funded by
Partnership for Peace and USCENTCOM (see below) appropriations. For example, the Arizona
National Guard has provided training for Kazakh active and reserve forces, interagency partners,
and international non-governmental organizations; the Louisiana National Guard for Uzbek
participants; the Montana National Guard for Kyrgyz participants; the Virginia National Guard
for Tajik participants; and the Nevada National Guard for Turkmen participants.92

90 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.
91 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global
Environment, Hearing on the Emerging Importance of the U.S.-Central Asia Partnership, Testimony of Robert Sedney,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, November 17 2010.
92 Lt. Col. Gail A. Ross, The National Guard State Partnership Program, USAWC Strategy Research Project, U.S.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
36

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Although U.S. security assistance to the region 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 to
Central Asia was 31% ($188 million) of all such aid to Eurasia in FY2002, but had declined to
18% ($247 million) in FY2010. Of all budgeted assistance to Central Asia over the period from
FY1992-FY2010, security and law enforcement aid accounted for a little over one-fifth. Security
and law enforcement programs include Foreign Military Financing (FMF), International Military
Education and Training (IMET), Excess Defense Articles (EDA), and border security aid to
combat trafficking in drugs, humans, and WMD.
A Defense Department counter-terrorism train and equip program (created under Section 1206 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006; P.L. 109-163) provided $20 million to
Kazakhstan in FY2006, $19.2 million in FY2007, and $12.5 million in FY2008 (the latter to
respond to threats in the North Caspian Sea). It also provided $12 million to Kyrgyzstan in
FY2008 and $9.6 million in FY2009. Another Defense Department program for defense articles,
services, training or other support for reconstruction, stabilization, and security activities (created
under Section 1207 of P.L. 109-163; Section 1207 has expired and been replaced by a USAID
Complex Crises Fund) provided $9.9 million to Tajikistan in FY2008.93 In FY2010, the Defense
Department transferred $15.8 million in Section 1207 funds to the State Department’s Civilian
Response Corps to assist in reconstruction in Kyrgyzstan following the April 2010 coup and the
June 2010 ethnic violence.94
In 2010, the Defense Department announced assistance to set up training facilities in Kyrgyzstan
and Tajikistan. The training center in southern Kyrgyzstan, planned to be built in the Batken
region, was planned to cost $5.5 million. The facility in Tajikistan, to be built near Dushanbe in
2011, was planned to cost $10 million. It was stated that no U.S. troops would be stationed at the
facilities, which were envisaged to bolster regional security by training military personnel to
combat drug-trafficking and terrorism.95 Construction of the Batken facility was reportedly
postponed because of instability in Kyrgyzstan in 2010.
According to the State Department’s 2012 Narcotics Control Strategy Report, up to one-fifth of
opium and heroin produced in Afghanistan are transited through Central Asia to markets in Russia
and Central Europe. Most of these drugs transit the Afghan-Tajik border, and from there are
shipped in bulk by trucks travelling along the relatively good road system in Uzbekistan.
Governmental corruption facilitates these shipments, according to the State Department. During
his visits to Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan in late June 2011, U.S. Assistant Secretary of
State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) William Brownfield

(...continued)
Army War College, May 3, 2004; Maj. Colleen M. Kelly, National Guard Bureau – State Partnership Program, Air
Command And Staff College, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, April 2006.
93 For background, see CRS Report RS22855, Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for
Congress
, by Nina M. Serafino, and CRS Report RS22871, Department of Defense “Section 1207” Security and
Stabilization Assistance: Background and Congressional Concerns, FY2006-FY2010
, by Nina M. Serafino.
94 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Stabilization Capabilities: Lessons Learned From Kyrgyzstan, Dipnote, October 04,
2010.
95 Deirdre Tynan, “Kyrgyzstan: U.S. Intends to Construct Military Training Center in Batken,” Eurasianet, March 3,
2010; Stratfor, June 25, 2010. The EU also has built or refurbished military training and border facilities in Central
Asia, including in Kyrgyzstan. See The EU’s Border Management Program in Central Asia (BOMCA), at
http://bomca.eu-bomca.kg/en/about.
Congressional Research Service
37

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

announced the launch of a new $4.2 million Central Asia Counternarcotics Initiative (CACI) to
provide training and equipment to set up counternarcotics task forces in each of the Central Asian
states. The initiative also aims to encourage regional cooperation by the task forces, including
through the U.S. supported Central Asia Regional Information Coordination Center (CARICC),
as well as broader cooperation with existing task forces in Afghanistan and Russia. Besides INL,
the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is involved in the initiative. A factsheet reports
that the State Department will closely coordinate with the Defense Department, which has
expended over $100 million in counter-narcotics program in Central Asia.96 Reportedly, Russia
has objected to the implementation of CACI.97
In addition to the aid reported by the Coordinator’s Office, the Defense Department provides
coalition support payments to Kyrgyzstan, including base lease payments and landing and
overflight fees (see below).
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). General Bantz Craddock, Commander of USEUCOM, testified in 2008 that the
Caspian Maritime Security Cooperation program coordinates security assistance provided by U.S.
agencies to Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. He stated that U.S. Naval Forces Europe cooperates with
U.S. Naval Forces Central Command “to promote maritime safety and security and maritime
domain awareness in the Caspian Sea.”98 Russia objects to the involvement of non-littoral
countries in Caspian maritime security and 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 exclusively with Russia.
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 communiqué pledged enhanced Alliance attention to the
countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia, and the NATO Secretary General appointed a
Special Representative for the 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 (however, it continued to permit Germany to use a base at
Termez). Relations with NATO appeared to improve in 2008-2009 (see below).
Kazakhstan’s progress in military reform enabled NATO in January 2006 to elevate it to
participation in an Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP). The third phase of the IPAP was
approved in August 2012 and reportedly involves continued training for the peacekeeping
battalion “Kazbat” (Kazakh battalion)and the peacekeeping brigade “Kazbrig” (Kazakh brigade),

96 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Fact Sheet: The Central
Asia Counternarcotics Initiative (CACI)
, February 21, 2012.
97 Joshua Kucera, “Russia Thwarts U.S. Central Asian Counterdrug Program,” The Bug Pit, Eurasianet, February 18,
2012.
98 House of Representatives, Armed Services Committee, Statement of General Bantz J. Craddock, Commander,
United States European Command
, March 13, 2008. 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.
Congressional Research Service
38

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

including at the PFP Training Center at the Military Institute of the Army in Almaty. Kazakhstan
has stated that it does not plan to join NATO but wants to modernize its armed forces. According
to analyst Roger McDermott, despite Kazakhstan’s cooperation with NATO, “the defense
relationship between Kazakhstan and Russia has, in fact, substantially deepened.”99 The Kazakh
defense ministry has reported, for instance, that “1,259 Kazakh servicemen are now studying at
Russian military educational establishments,” constituting a substantial boost over previous
years.100 Perhaps an example of Kazakhstan’s use of training from the United States, NATO, and
Russia, a regular NATO PFP “Steppe Eagle” military exercise was held in Kazakhstan in
September 2012, involving the Kazbat and Kazbrig, which will be followed by the CSTO
Collective Peacekeeping Forces’ “Unbreakable Brotherhood 2012” exercise in Kazakhstan in
October 2012.
According to former USCENTCOM Commander Admiral William Fallon, the Bagram airbase in
Afghanistan is the Forward Operating Site (basing intended for rotational use by operating forces
with limited U.S. military support presence and possibly pre-positioned equipment) for access to
and operations in Central Asia.101
Closure of the Karshi-Khanabad Airbase
On July 5, 2005, the presidents of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan signed a declaration
issued during a meeting of the SCO (see above, “Obstacles to Peace and Independence:
Regional Tensions and Conflicts”) 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.”102 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. 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.103

99 Roger McDermott, Kazakhstan’s Defense Policy: An Assessment Of The Trends, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S.
Army War College, February 2009.
100 CEDR, April 14, 2009, Doc. No. CEP-950316.
101 House of Representatives. Appropriations Committee. Subcommittee on Military Construction. Statement of
Admiral William J. Fallon, Commander, U.S. Central Command, on Military Construction in U.S. Central Command
,
April 17, 2007.
102 CEDR, July 5, 2005, Doc. No. CPP-249.
103 For further information, see CRS Report RS22295, Uzbekistan's Closure of the Airbase at Karshi-Khanabad:
Context and Implications
, by Jim Nichol.
Congressional Research Service
39

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Efforts to Improve Security Relations
Appearing to signal improving U.S.-Uzbek relations, in early 2008 Uzbekistan permitted U.S.
military personnel under NATO command, on a case-by-case basis, to transit through an airbase
near the town of Termez that it has permitted Germany to operate.104 President Karimov attended
the NATO Summit in Bucharest, Romania, in early April 2008 and stated that Uzbekistan was
ready to discuss the transit of non-lethal goods and equipment by NATO through Uzbekistan to
Afghanistan. He announced in May 2009 that the United States and NATO had been permitted to
use the Navoi airport (located between Samarkand and Bukhara in east-central Uzbekistan) for
transporting non-lethal supplies to Afghanistan.
Representing the Obama Administration, Under Secretary of State William Burns visited
Uzbekistan in early July 2009, and President Karimov assessed his talks with Burns as “positive.”
In August 2009, General David Petraeus traveled to Uzbekistan and signed an accord on boosting
military educational exchanges and training. Reportedly, these visits also resulted in permission
by Uzbekistan for military air overflights of weapons to Afghanistan. Assistant Secretary Blake
visited Uzbekistan in November 2009 and stated that his meetings there were “a reflection of the
determination of President Obama and Secretary Clinton to strengthen ties between the United
States and Uzbekistan.” He proposed that the two countries set up high-level annual consultations
to “build our partnership across a wide range of areas. These include trade and development,
border security, cooperation on narcotics, the development of civil society, and individual
rights.”105
The first Bilateral Consultation meeting took place in late December 2009 with a visit to the
United States by an Uzbek delegation led by Foreign Minister Vladimir Norov. The two sides
drew up a plan for cooperation for 2010 that involved an extensive range of diplomatic visits,
increased military-to-military contacts, and investment and trade overtures, including the
provision of Expanded IMET.106 The second U.S.-Uzbek Bilateral Consultation meeting took
place in February 2011 with a visit to Uzbekistan led by Assistant Secretary Blake. The talks
reportedly included security cooperation, trade and development, science and technology,
counter-narcotics, civil society development, and human rights. A U.S. business delegation
discussed means to increase trade ties. Blake reported that the United States had purchased $23
million in Uzbek goods for transit to Afghanistan in FY2010.

104 “U.S. Military Returns to Ex-Soviet Uzbekistan,” Agence France Presse, March 6, 2008; “Only Germany Can Use
Uzbek Bases Now,” United Press International, December 13, 2005.
105 U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, Press Conference of Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs
Robert Blake
, October 14, 2009.
106 CEDR, January 29, 2010, Doc. No. CEP-4019. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) defines
Expanded IMET as a group of courses aimed at “educating U.S. friends and allies in the proper management of their
defense resources, improving their systems of military justice ... and fostering a greater respect for, and understanding
of, the principle of civilian control of the military. The program is based upon the premise that active promotion of
democratic values is one of the most effective means available for achieving U.S. national security and foreign policy
objectives.... For a country whose international military training program is very politically sensitive, the entire IMET
program may consist of Expanded IMET training only.” See DSCA. What is Expanded IMET? At
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/programs/eimet/eimet_default.htm.
Congressional Research Service
40

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

The Manas Airbase/Transit Center
The Manas airbase (since 2009 called the Manas Transit Center; see below) became operational
in December 2001 and uses some facilities of the international airport near Bishkek, the capital of
Kyrgyzstan. According to a fact sheet prepared in early 2009 by the 376th Air Expeditionary Wing
of the U.S. Air Force, the Manas airbase serves as the “premier air mobility hub” for operations in
Afghanistan. Missions include support for personnel and cargo transiting in and out of the theater,
aerial refueling, airlift and airdrop, and medical evacuation. Secretary Clinton was told during her
December 2010 visit to the Manas Transit Center that up to 3,500 troops every day, over 13
million pounds of cargo each month, and 117 million gallons of fuel each year are handled by the
airbase.
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 but at the same time reaffirmed
Russia’s free use of its nearby base.107 By mid-July 2006, however, the United States and
Kyrgyzstan announced that they had reached a settlement for the continued U.S. use of the
airbase. 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.
In September 2007, a U.S. military officer stated that the Manas airbase was moving toward “a
sustainment posture,” with the replacement of most tents and the building of aircraft maintenance,
medical, and other facilities.108
On February 3, 2009, then-President Bakiyev announced during a visit to Moscow that he
intended to close the Manas airbase. Many observers speculated that the decision was spurred by
Russia, which offered Bakiyev a $300 million loan for economic development and a $150 million
grant for budget stabilization in the wake of the world economic downturn. Russia also stated that
it would write off most of a $180 million debt. The United States was notified on February 19,
2009, that under the terms of the status of forces agreement it had 180 days to vacate the airbase.
The Manas Transit Center Agreement
The Defense Department announced on June 24, 2009, that an agreement of “mutual benefit” had
been concluded with the Kyrgyz government “to continu[e] to work, with them, to supply our
troops in Afghanistan, so that we can help with the overall security situation in the region.”109 The
agreement was approved by the Kyrgyz legislature and signed into law by then-President
Bakiyev, to take effect on July 14, 2009. According to the then-Kyrgyz foreign minister, the
government decided to conclude the annually renewable “intergovernmental agreement with the
United States on cooperation and the formation of a transit center at Manas airport,” because of
growing alarm about “the worrying situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” The agreement is for
five years and is renewed yearly, unless both parties agree to end it. A yearly rent payment for use

107 Perhaps indicating Kyrgyz pressure on Russia to compensate for use of the base, Russia in October 2006 pledged
grant military assistance to Kyrgyzstan.
108 Lt. Col. Michael Borgert, “Liberandos: Thank You for a Job Well Done,” 376th Expeditionary Services Squadron
Public Affairs, September 9, 2007.
109 U.S. Department of Defense, DoD News Briefing, June 24, 2009. See also U.S. Department of State, Daily Press
Briefing
, June 25, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
41

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

of land and facilities at the Manas airport would be increased from $17.4 million to $60 million
per year and the United States had pledged more than $36 million for infrastructure
improvements and $30 million for air traffic control system upgrades for the airport. Sarbayev
also stated that the United States had pledged $20 million dollars for a U.S.-Kyrgyz Joint
Development Fund for economic projects, $21 million for counter-narcotics efforts, and $10
million for counter-terrorism efforts.110 All except the increased rent had already been
appropriated or requested. The agreement also reportedly includes stricter host-country conditions
on U.S. military personnel. One Kyrgyz legislator claimed that the agreement was not a volte-face
for Kyrgyzstan because Russia and other Central Asian states had signed agreements with NATO
to permit the transit of supplies to Afghanistan (see below).111
Kyrgyzstan had also requested that French and Spanish troops who were deployed at Manas had
to leave, and they had pulled out by October 2009. The French detachment (reportedly 35 troops
and a tanker aircraft) moved temporarily to Dushanbe. The Spanish unit (reportedly 60 troops and
two transport aircraft) moved temporarily to Herat, west Afghanistan, and Dushanbe was used
temporarily as a stopover for troop relief flights. France and Spain have since reached accords
with Kyrgyzstan and have returned to Manas.
The Status of the Manas Transit Center After the April 2010 Coup
Initially after the April 2010 ouster of then-President Bakiyev, some officials in the interim
government stated or implied that the conditions of the lease would be examined. Then-acting
Prime Minister Roza Otunbayeva warned on April 8 that questions of corruption involving
commercial supplies for the Manas Transit Center would be one matter of investigation. On April
12, she stated that she realized that 2010 was a seminal year for U.S. operations in Afghanistan
and that President Obama planned on drawing down troops thereafter, and implied that ultimately
she hoped there were no bases in the country.112 On April 13, Otunbayeva announced that the
lease on the Manas Transit Center would be “automatically” renewed for one year. Meeting with
Secretary Clinton on December 2, 2010, Otunbayeva stressed that the Manas Transit Center was a
significant contributor to regional security and that Kyrgyzstan would support its operation at
least through 2014 in line with U.S. Administration objectives for drawing down U.S. forces.113
President Atambayev has called for the closure of the Manas Transit Center when the basing
agreement comes up for renewal in 2014, to coincide with the drawdown of U.S. forces in
Afghanistan.
The U.S. Embassy in Bishkek has reported that in FY2011, the United States provided $150.6
million in direct, indirect, and charitable expenses in connection with the Manas Transit Center;
$131.5 million in FY2010; and $108 million in FY2009.
Of this FY2011 amount:

110 Tolkun Namatbayeva, “Kyrgyzstan Allows U.S. to Keep Using Base,” Agence France Presse, June 23, 2009.
111 See also CRS Report R40564, Kyrgyzstan and the Status of the U.S. Manas Airbase: Context and Implications, by
Jim Nichol.
112 CEDR, April 12, 2010, Doc. No. CEP-600.
113 U.S. Department of State, Remarks With President Otunbayeva After Their Meeting, Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State
, December 2, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
42

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

• $60 million was a lease payment;
• $27.4 million was landing and other fees and leases;
• $30 million was a contribution to Kyrgyz Aeronavigation;
• $30.9 million was for construction of buildings and road repairs, for furniture and
other equipment, and for services;
• $824,000 was for “programmatic humanitarian assistance”; and
• $1.4 million was for other local spending
The December 2010 Congressional Report on Fuel Contracts
In December 2010, the majority staff of the Subcommittee for National Security and Foreign
Affairs of the House Oversight Committee released a report on contracts awarded by the Defense
Department’s Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to the privately owned Red Star and its sister
Mina firms for the supply of jet fuel for the Manas Transit Center.114 The report stressed that
many citizens of Kyrgyzstan, and even current Kyrgyz President Roza Otunbayeva, supposed that
former Kyrgyz Presidents Askar Akayev and Bakiyev and their families had benefitted from the
contracts in a corrupt fashion. Perceptions of corruption regarding the fuel contracts, according to
the report, were significant factors in the overthrow of the presidents and in growing tensions
between the United States and Kyrgyzstan. The subcommittee reported evidence from the FBI
that the Akayev family was corruptly involved in fuel supplies to the Manas Transit Center, but
the subcommittee found no direct evidence of illicit involvement by the Bakiyev family. President
Otunbayeva had called for transparency in the fuel contracts in a speech at the U.N. General
Assembly in September 2010 and during an associated meeting with President Barack Obama.
According to the report’s findings, DLA did not know who owned Red Star or Mina until late
2010, did not claim to care whether contract funds were being misappropriated by Akayev’s
family, did not know that Russia’s state-owned Gazprom gas firm had an ownership interest in a
subsidiary of the firms, and did not claim to know that the firms were using false certifications to
obtain fuel from Russia. On the latter issue, Red Star and Mina had repeatedly informed DLA of
the false certifications scheme, according to emails and other documents. In a 2006 Red Star
proposal for a fuel contract, for instance, the firm spelled out that it was participating in a scheme
to circumvent supposed Russian restrictions on fuel exports for military uses, and warned DLA
that opening up the contracting process to other bidders might expose this scheme and lead to a
fuel cut-off by Russia. The 2006 contract was subsequently awarded to Red Star without
competition. A 2009 contract to Mina also was awarded without competition on “national
security” grounds. The subcommittee argued that the use of such a scheme to obtain fuel and
DLA’s apparent lack of reaction to the scheme opened the United States to excessive strategic
vulnerability, since a sudden fuel cutoff by Russia could jeopardize U.S. military operations in
Afghanistan.
Red Star and Mina reported that the Russian government knew that Gazprom was the source of
jet fuel for the Manas Transit Center. The firms claimed, however, that they still had to falsely

114 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on National
Security and Foreign Affairs, Mystery at Manas: Strategic Blind Spots in the Department of Defense’s Fuel Contracts
in Kyrgyzstan
, Report of the Majority Staff, December 2010.
Congressional Research Service
43

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

certify that the aviation fuel was being used for civilian purposes so that Russian authorities could
claim that their ban on aviation fuel exports for military uses was not being circumvented. After
then-President Putin apparently decided in early 2009 that the U.S. airbase at Manas should be
closed and offered assistance to Kyrgyzstan as a seeming quid pro quo, Gazprom initiated a
slowdown in fuel shipments, according to the report. Although Kyrgyzstan’s then-President
Bakiyev had pledged to Putin that he would close the airbase, in mid-2009 Bakiyev instead
redesignated it as the “Manas Transit Center” and permitted it to continue operations. Russia then
“discovered” that Gazprom’s fuel shipments were being used by the airbase, imposed a high
export tariff on all fuel exports to Kyrgyzstan on April 1, 2010, and later cut off all fuel shipments
to Kyrgyzstan through Mina and Red Star.
The report also criticized the State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Bishkek for ignoring the
ramifications of the fuel contracts on U.S.-Kyrgyz relations. Even after Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton became engaged with the issue during her December 2010 visit to Kyrgyzstan (see
below), the embassy reportedly asserted that issues involving the fuel contract were beyond its
concern, according to the report.
Among the recommendations on improving the transparency and due diligence of fuel contracts
for the Manas Transit Center, the subcommittee called for an interagency analysis of the U.S.
military’s “extraordinary reliance on Mina and Red Star for jet fuel” and on the risks associated
with increased Russian influence over the fuel supply chain supporting U.S. operations in
Afghanistan. The subcommittee also stated that “ability to perform and financial viability are
necessary but not sufficient objects of due diligence. Business history, litigation exposure,
insurance posture, affiliated companies, and ownership are also important for U.S. contacting
authorities to understand in order to make competent judgments about contractors.” Knowledge
of ownership, for instance, is needed to satisfy a Federal Acquisition Regulations requirement that
principals be checked against sanctions lists, it stated.
Recent Fuel Contract Developments
In November 2010, DLA awarded Mina a $315 million contract to continue supplying up to 120
million gallons of fuel to the Manas Transit Center for at least one more year. An amendment to
the contract later highlighted by Secretary Clinton during her December 2010 visit to Kyrgyzstan
provided for the possible addition of a second supplier for between 20 and 50% of the fuel.115 The
Kyrgyz government called for the Manas Refueling Complex—established in mid-2010 as a joint
venture between the Kyrgyz government and Gazprom—to be named as the sole supplier and for
Mina to be suspended from the contract. The report by the House Subcommittee raised concerns
about more direct Russian involvement in fuel supplies, since the country has appeared to use its
energy exports as a tool in foreign relations.116
In early February 2011, a U.S.-Kyrgyz agreement on fuel supplies was signed. A few days later,
the Manas Refueling Complex was reincorporated as the Gazpromneft-Aero-Kyrgyzstan joint

115 U.S. Department of Defense, Press Release, November 4, 2010.
116 Deirdre Tynan, “Kyrgyzstan: Manas Fuel Supplier Doubles Down on Good News,” Eurasianet, November 4, 2010;
Deirdre Tynan, “Kyrgyzstan: Is Manas Fuel Contract Award Only the Start, not End of Intrigue?” Eurasianet,
November 5, 2010; Deirdre Tynan, “Kyrgyzstan: Manas Fuel Supply Contract to Be Re-Opened?” Eurasianet,
December 22, 2010; Deirdre Tynan, “Kyrgyzstan: Manas Fuel Supplier Hitting Back at Bishkek,” Eurasianet, January
4, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
44

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

venture, with Kyrgyzstan as the minority partner (with 49% of the shares). The U.S. Defense
Logistics Agency placed its first order for fuel with Gazpromneft-Aero-Kyrgyzstan on September
26, 2011, to initially supply 20% of the Transit Center’s aviation fuel needs (estimated at up to 12
million gallons per month), potentially reaching 50% or more by the end of the year. According to
one report, the fuel is directly supplied from Gazprom’s oil refineries and transported by the
Russian Transoil company to the transit center.117
On October 26, 2011, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) announced that it had awarded a one-
year contract for 2012 for the provision of fuel to the Manas Transit Center to World Fuel
Services Europe (WFSE), a subsidiary of a U.S.-based firm. Under the contract, WFSE will
cooperate with Gazpromneft-Aero Kyrgyzstan (GAK) to fulfill the aviation fuel needs of the
Transit Center. WFSE is to provide a minimum of 10% of the fuel requirements of the Transit
Center and a maximum of 100%, but GAK may eventually be called upon to provide up to 90%
of the monthly aviation fuel supplies based on its capabilities and performance. The new contract
does not mention any role for Mina Corporation in providing fuel. The U.S. Embassy in Bishkek
stated that the new contract aimed “to ensure a stable, secure, and uninterrupted supply of fuel” to
the Transit Center.118
The U.S. Embassy in Bishkek reported in August 2012 that DLA had provided $163.1 million to
GAK for jet fuel in FY2012 through the end of July.
The Northern Distribution Network to Afghanistan
Because supplies transiting Pakistan to Afghanistan frequently were subject to attacks, General
David Petraeus, the then-Commander of the U.S. Central Command, visited Kazakhstan and
Tajikistan in late January 2009 to negotiate alternative air, rail, road, and water routes for the
commercial shipping of supplies to support NATO and U.S. operations in Afghanistan (he also
visited Kyrgyzstan to discuss airbase issues; see below). To encourage a positive response for this
Northern Distribution Network (NDN), the U.S. embassies in the region announced that the
United States hoped to purchase many non-military goods locally to transport to the troops in
Afghanistan. Kazakhstan and Tajikistan permitted such transit in February 2009, Uzbekistan
permitted it in April 2009, and Kyrgyzstan permitted it in July 2009 (Georgia had given such
permission in 2005, Russia in 2008, and Azerbaijan in March 2009).
There are broadly three land routes: one through the South Caucasus into Central Asia; one from
Latvia through Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan; and one from Latvia through Russia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. Although some small cargoes reportedly were sent along
the route on an ad hoc basis in late 2008, a much-publicized rail shipment of non-lethal supplies
entered Afghanistan in late March 2009 after transiting Latvia, Russia, Kazakhstan, and
Uzbekistan.119 During his confirmation hearing in July 2011 as Commander of the U.S.

117 Deidre Tynan, “Kyrgyzstan: Manas Fuel Contract Goes to Kyrgyz-Russian Venture,” Eurasianet, September 27,
2011; CEDR, September 28, 2011, Doc. No. CEP-950073.
118 U.S. Department of State, Embassy of the United States in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, Manas Fuel Contract Award,
October 27, 2011; Deirdre Tynan, “Kyrgyzstan: The End of an Era at Manas Air Base,” Eurasianet, October 27, 2011.
119 “Northern Route Eases Supplies to U.S, forces in Afghanistan,” International Institute of Strategic Studies, August
2010; Steve Geary, “Northern Distribution Network to Shore Up Afghan Supply Chain,” Defense Logistics, June 28,
2010; “Supply Chain Council Recognizes Alternative Afghanistan Distribution Network,” Journal of Transportation,
May 8, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
45

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Transportation Command, General William Fraser stated that the aim was to boost the percentage
of surface transit through the NDN.120 The Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported in late
2011 that almost three-fourths of the non-lethal surface shipments to Afghanistan were being
transported via the NDN (this amount increased following Pakistan’s halt to shipments from late
November 2011 to early July 2012).121 Non-lethal supplies reportedly being shipped to
Afghanistan along the NDN include cement, lumber, blast barriers, septic tanks, and matting. In
addition, increasing volumes of jet fuel are being purchased in Azerbaijan and Central Asia and
transported to Afghanistan. Supplementing land routes, Uzbekistan’s Navoi airport reportedly is
being used to transport supplies to Afghanistan. After aircraft land at Navoi, the supplies are sent
by rail and truck to Afghanistan.122 According to one report, U.S. Defense Department officials
are concerned that Uzbek officials are delaying the transit of freight across the border into
Afghanistan, including by delaying shipments until bribes are paid. In August 2011, shipments
began along a 50-mile rail line built from the town of Hairatan, on Afghanistan’s border with
Uzbekistan, to the city of Mazar-e-Sharif in Afghanistan, which may ameliorate some of the
delays.123 Reportedly, the bulk of ISAF cargo containers shipped through the NDN eventually
enter Afghanistan via this Uzbekistan-Afghanistan rail link.
Besides commercial shipping of non-lethal cargoes, most regional governments allegedly have
quietly given U.S. and NATO military aircraft over-flight privileges for the transport of weapons
and troops to Afghanistan. At the July 2009 U.S.-Russia summit, Russia openly announced that it
was permitting such overflights. Some observers suggested that the announcement was linked to
the assertion of some Russian officials that such transport could substitute for U.S. and NATO use
of Manas and other Central Asian airbases. Presidents Obama and Nazarbayev reportedly agreed
in principle to air flights of troops and unspecified equipment, including along a circum-polar
route transiting Kazakhstan, during their meeting in April 2010, and an air transit agreement was
signed on November 12, 2010.
Most of the Central Asian governments gave permission in 2012 for the egress of supplies and
troops from Afghanistan in line with U.S. and NATO plans to draw down military operations in
Afghanistan by late 2014. Assistant Secretary Blake reported in August 2012 that discussions are
underway within the U.S. government on how much and what types of equipment removed from
Afghanistan might be declared Excess Defense Articles (EDA) and provided to regional
governments. He indicated that the U.S. government probably would not provide Uzbekistan with
lethal EDA (weaponry), but might well provide military vehicles. He suggested that Uzbekistan’s
support for the NDN may have raised the ire of terrorist organizations, so that “it is very much in
our interest to help Uzbekistan defend itself against such attacks.” At the same time, he dismissed
concerns that military assistance provided to Uzbekistan could be misused.124

120 U.S. Senate, Committee on Armed Services, Confirmation Hearing for William M. Fraser to be Commander, U.S.
Transportation Command, August 2, 2011. See also Subcommittee on Seapower, Hearing on the FY2012 Budget
Request for Strategic Airlift Aircraft, July 13, 2011.
121 U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Central Asia And The Transition In Afghanistan: A Majority Staff
Report,
December 19, 2011.
122 A circum-polar air route from the United States transiting Russia and Central Asia to Afghanistan also has begun to
be used. Marcus Weisgerber, “Afghanistan War Spurred Big Changes for Logistics Community,” Federal Times,
September 19, 2011.
123 “Uzbek Corridor of Afghan Supply Plagued by ‘Informal Payments,’” The Times of Central Asia, July 2, 2010;
“Construction of Hairatan-Mazar-e-Sharif Railroad Completed” Uzbekistan Daily, November 16, 2010.
124 U.S. Department of State, On-the-Record Briefing With International Media:Robert O. Blake, Jr., Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs
, August 15, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
46

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

In March 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta visited Bishkek, reportedly to obtain
reassurances about the Kyrgyz government’s basing commitments. In early May 2012, however,
President Atambayev reiterated that the basing accord would not be extended when it came up for
renewal in 2014, an announcement that was hailed by the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Kazakhstan reportedly is advocating that the use of its Caspian sea port at Aktau be increased as a
component of the NDN.
According to some observers, Uzbekistan has withdrawn from the CSTO and Tajikistan has
wrangled with Russia over extending basing agreements at least in part in the hopes of obtaining
funds and equipment from the United States and NATO during the withdrawal of forces from
Afghanistan.125
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.126
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). The SS-18s were eliminated by late 1994. On April 21, 1995, the last of about 1,040
nuclear warheads had been removed from SS-18 missiles and transferred to Russia, and
Kazakhstan announced that it was nuclear weapons-free. The 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. In 1997 and 1999, U.S.-Kazakh accords were signed on decommissioning the Aktau
reactor. Shut down in 1999, it had nearly 300 metric tons of uranium (some highly enriched) and

125 Karimjan Akhmedov and Evgeniya Usmanova, “Afghanistan Withdrawal: The Pros and Cons of Using the Northern
Distribution Network,” Eurasianet, September 12, 2012.
126 A Treaty on the Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone entered into force in January 2009. All five Central
Asian states are signatories. The Treaty prohibits the development, manufacture, stockpiling, acquisition, or possession
of nuclear explosive devices within the zone. See CRS Report RL31559, Proliferation Control Regimes: Background
and Status
, coordinated by Mary Beth Nikitin.
Congressional Research Service
47

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

plutonium (some weapons-grade) spent fuel in storage pools. CTR aid was used to facilitate
transporting 600 kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU) 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), and 162.5 lb. of HEU spent fuel from Aktau
to Russia in May 2009. In the latter instance, the material originally had been provided by Russia
to Kazakhstan, and was returned to Russia by rail for storage in a series of four shipments
between December 2008 and May 2009. In November 2010, CTR aid was used to facilitate the
shipment of the last of more than 10 metric tons of highly enriched uranium and three metric tons
of weapons-grade plutonium from Aktau to a newly constructed storage site 1,800 miles away at
the former Semipalatinsk Test Site in East Kazakhstan Region.127
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 radiation monitoring
equipment and training.
Trade and Investment
Successive U.S. administrations have endorsed free market reforms in Central Asia, since these
directly serve 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. In line with Kyrgyzstan’s
accession to the World Trade Organization, the United States established permanent normal trade
relations with Kyrgyzstan 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 has met 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 United States 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. The reorganization of the State Department in 2006 to create
the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs facilitated this emphasis.128

127 U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Press Release: Joint Statement By Co-
Chairs of the U.S.-Kazakhstan Energy Partnership On Successful Completion of the U.S.-Kazakhstan BN-350 Spent
Fuel Program,
November 17, 2010; Press Release: NNSA Secures 775 Nuclear Weapons Worth of Weapons-Grade
Nuclear Material from BN-350 Fast Reactor in Kazakhstan
, November 18, 2010.
128 Remarks at Eurasian National University, October 13, 2005; and U.S. Congress, House International Relations
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
48

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

The sixth meeting of the U.S.-Central Asia TIFA was held on September 14-15, 2011, in
Washington, DC, and included emissaries from Afghanistan participating as observers. Bilateral
sessions and meetings with private industry took place. Kazakhstan provided an overview of the
newly formed Kazakhstan-Belarus-Russia Customs Union, and other attendees provided updates
on efforts to accede to the WTO. The United States stressed adherence to intellectual property
protections and discussed its “new silk road vision” (see below) with the emissaries.129
Building on U.S. government efforts since the mid-2000s to encourage energy and other trade
linkages between Central and South Asia, in July 2011 Secretary Clinton announced that U.S.
policy toward Afghanistan in coming years would focus on encouraging “stronger economic ties
through South and Central Asia so that goods, capital, and people can flow more easily across
borders.”130 She further explained this “new Silk Road vision” at a meeting of regional ministers
and others in September 2011, stating that
as we look to the future of this region, let us take this precedent [of a past Silk Road] as
inspiration for a long-term vision for Afghanistan and its neighbors. Let us set our sights on a
new Silk Road—a web of economic and transit connections that will bind together a region
too long torn apart by conflict and division…. Turkmen gas fields could help meet both
Pakistan’s and India’s growing energy needs and provide significant transit revenues for both
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Tajik cotton could be turned into Indian linens. Furniture and fruit
from Afghanistan could find its way to the markets of Astana or Mumbai and beyond.131
The Silk Road Vision further was adumbrated during meetings in Turkey and Germany in late
2011. The Istanbul Conference Communiqué called for connecting Afghanistan to Central Asian
and Iranian railways and for bolstering regional energy linkages.132
This “new Silk Road vision” seems congruent with suggestions made by a bipartisan group of
analysts and former U.S. officials who have called for enhanced U.S. economic assistance to
Central Asia to bolster the TIFA by focusing on highway and other projects. The group also has
proposed moving beyond TIFA through involvement of foreign and economic ministers in
discussions about regional economic and security cooperation, akin to those undertaken by the
CSTO and the SCO.133

(...continued)
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, Astana, Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan and the United States in a
Changed World
, August 23, 2006.
129 Office the U.S. Trade Representative, United States and Central Asian Countries Evaluate Progress on Trade and
Investment Relationship
, Press Release, September 2011.
130 U.S. Department of State, Travel Diary: “India and the United States—A Vision for the 21st Century,” DipNote,
July 20, 2011.
131 U.S. Department of State, Secretary Clinton Co-Chairs the New Silk Road Ministerial Meeting, DipNote, September
23, 2011; Fact Sheet on New Silk Road Ministerial, September 22, 2011. See also U.S. Department of State, Remarks,
Robert D. Hormats, Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, Address to the SAIS Central Asia-
Caucasus Institute and CSIS Forum
, September 29, 2011.
132 Andrew Kuchins, “Laying the Groundwork for Afghanistan's New Silk Road: How Washington and Kabul Can
Turn a Vision Into a Plan,” Foreign Affairs, December 5, 2011.
133 Strengthening Fragile Partnerships: An Agenda for the Future of U.S.-Central Asia Relations, The Project 2049
Institute, February, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
49

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

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. 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. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan possess the bulk of the
region’s water resources, but in recent years both countries have suffered from droughts.
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). Cotton-growing has
contributed to environmental pollution and water shortages, leading some observers to argue that
cotton-growing is not suited to the largely arid region.
Tajikistan has alleged that Uzbekistan delays rail freight shipments, purportedly to pressure
Tajikistan to halt construction of the Rogun hydro-electric power dam on the Vakhsh River, which
Uzbekistan fears could limit the flow of water into the country. In November 2011, it closed a rail
link to southern Tajikistan, reporting that a bridge was damaged, but since then has not reopened
the span. Uzbekistan also has periodically cut off gas supplies to Tajikistan, most recently in early
April 2012. Uzbekistan at first stated that it needed to divert gas shipments to fulfill contracts
with China, but later maintained that the cutoff merely represented the fulfillment of a supply
contract with Tajikistan. In early April 2012, Tajikistan’s prime minister and its foreign ministry
denounced the cutoff and the rail restrictions as part of an “economic blockade” aiming to
destabilize Tajikistan. The Uzbek prime minister responded that all Uzbek actions were in
accordance with bilateral agreements or responses to Tajik actions, so that the accusations were
“groundless.” Gas supplies were resumed in mid-April 2012.134
According to some reports, Uzbek officials have stepped-up arrests, fines, and other actions
against international business interests in recent months, perhaps due in part to elite infighting
and growing corruption.135 Other international businesses continue to carry out operations.
Energy Resources
U.S. policy goals regarding energy resources in the Central Asian and South Caucasian states
have included supporting their sovereignty and ties to the West, supporting U.S. private
investment, promoting Western energy security through diversified suppliers, assisting ally
Turkey, and opposing the building of pipelines that transit “energy competitor” Iran or otherwise
give it undue influence over the region. The encouragement of regional electricity, oil, and gas
exports to South Asia and security for Caspian region pipelines and energy resources also have
been recent interests.

134 Yulia Goryaynova, Galim Faskhutdinov, and Saule Mukhametrakhimov, “A Gas Row Highlights Tajik-Uzbek
Tensions,” IWPR, April 24, 2012; CEDR, April 3, 2012, Doc. No. CEP-950105; April 4, 2012, Doc. No. CEP-950127.
135 Catherine Fitzpatrick, “Uzbekistan: Foreign Investors Suffering amid Tashkent’s “Bizarre” Business Behavior,”
Eurasianet, August 16, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
50

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Until 2004, the Bush Administration retained a Clinton-era position, Special Advisor on Caspian
Energy Diplomacy, to help further U.S. policy and counter the efforts of Russia’s Viktor
Kaluzhny, the then-deputy foreign minister and Special Presidential Representative for Energy
Matters in the Caspian. After the Administration abolished this post as no longer necessary, its
responsibilities were shifted at least in part to a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
(responsibilities of a former Special Negotiator for Nagorno-Karabakh and Eurasian Conflicts
also were shifted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary). Some critics juxtaposed Russia’s close
interest in securing Caspian energy resources to what they termed halting U.S. efforts.136 A post of
Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy issues was (re-)created in March 2008, with the former Bush
Administration stating that there were “new opportunities” for the export of Caspian oil and gas.
In April 2009, Secretary of State Clinton appointed Richard Morningstar as Special Envoy for
Eurasian Energy (as of September 2012, the position is unfilled).
The Caspian region is emerging as a notable source of oil and gas for world markets. The U.S.
Energy Information Administration has estimated that gas exports from the region could account
for 11% of global gas export sales by 2035, belying arguments by some observers that the region
would be a marginal contributor to world energy supplies. According to British Petroleum (BP),
the proven natural gas reserves of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan are
estimated at over 450 trillion cubic feet (tcf), among the largest in the world.137 The region’s
proven oil reserves are estimated to be 48 billion barrels, comparable to Libya.
Russia’s temporary cutoffs of gas to Ukraine in January 2006 and January 2009 and a brief
slowdown of oil shipments to Belarus in January 2010 (Belarus and Ukraine are transit states for
oil and gas pipelines to other European states) have highlighted Europe’s energy insecurity. 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
that cross the Caspian Sea, thereby bypassing Russian (and Iranian) territory, although these
amounts are expected at most to satisfy only a small fraction of EU needs.138
The Central Asian states long were pressured by Russia to yield large portions of their energy
wealth to Russia, in part because Russia controlled most existing export pipelines.139 Russia
attempted to strengthen this control over export routes for Central Asian energy in May 2007
when visiting former President Putin reached agreement in Kazakhstan on supplying more
Kazakh oil to Russia. 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. The latter also appeared to compete with U.S. and EU
efforts to foster building a pipeline from Turkey through Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, and
Hungary to Austria (the so-called Nabucco pipeline).

136 Eurasia Daily Monitor, May 31, 2007.
137 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2010.
138 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.
139 According to a plan published by Russia’s Institute of Energy Strategy covering the period 2007-2030, “Russian
control over a large share of Central Asian gas needs to be maintained.” See Minpromenergo (Ministry of Industry and
Energy), Institut energeticheskoi strategii, Kontseptsiya energeticheskoi strategii Rossii na period do 2030g., 2007. As
reported by Philip Hanson, “How Sustainable Is Russia’s Energy Power?” Russian Analytical Digest, No. 38 (2008).
Congressional Research Service
51

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Seeming to indicate a direct challenge to these plans by Russia and the West, China signed an
agreement in August 2007 with Kazakhstan on completing the last section of an oil pipeline from
the Caspian seacoast to China, and signed an agreement with Turkmenistan on building a gas
pipeline to China (see also below).140 In March 2008, the heads of the national gas companies of
Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan announced that their countries would raise the gas
export price to the European level in future years. They signed a memorandum of understanding
on the price with Russia’s Gazprom state-controlled gas firm, which controls most export
pipelines. According to analyst Martha Olcott, “the increased bargaining power of the Central
Asian states owes more to the entry of China into the market than to the opening of [the BTC
pipeline and the SCP]. Russia’s offer to pay higher purchase prices for Central Asian gas in 2008
and 2009 came only after China signed a long-term purchase agreement for Turkmen gas at a
base price that was higher than what Moscow was offering.”141
In testimony in June 2011, then-Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy Richard Morningstar stated
that U.S. policy encourages the development of new Eurasian oil and gas resources to increase
the diversity of world energy supplies. In the case of oil, increased supplies may directly benefit
the United States, he stated. A second U.S. goal is to increase European energy security, so that
some countries in Europe that largely rely on a single supplier (presumably Russia) may in the
future have diverse suppliers. A third goal is assisting Caspian regional states to develop new
routes to market, so that they can obtain more competitive prices and become more prosperous. In
order to achieve these goals, the Administration supports the development of the Southern
Corridor of Caspian (and perhaps Iraq) gas export routes transiting Turkey to Europe. Of various
competing pipeline proposals, the Administration will support the proposal “that brings the most
gas, soonest and most reliably, to those parts of Europe that need it most.” The Administration
also supports the diversification of Kazakhstan’s export routes and the boosting of oil production
as a significant addition to world oil supplies. At the same time, Morningstar rejected views that
Russia and the United States are competing for influence over Caspian energy supplies, stating
that the Administration has formed a Working Group on Energy under the U.S.-Russia Bilateral
Presidential Commission.142
Kazakhstan’s Oil and Gas
According to British Petroleum, Kazakhstan possesses 30 billion barrels of proven oil reserves
(about 2% of world reserves) and 66.4 trillion cubic feet of proven gas reserves (about 1% of
world gas reserves). There are five major onshore oil fields—Tengiz, Karachaganak, Aktobe,
Mangistau, and Uzen—which account for about half of the proven reserves. There are two major
offshore oil fields in Kazakhstan's sector of the Caspian Sea —Kashagan and Kurmangazy—
which are estimated to contain at least 14 billion barrels of recoverable reserves.
Nazarbayev’s development goals for Kazakhstan rely heavily on increases in oil and gas
production and exports, which account for a significant share of government revenues and GDP
growth. The government has anticipated growing revenues in particular from expanding

140 An oil and gas conference involving Kazakh, Chinese, and Russian energy ministries and firms has met annually
since 2004 to “exchange views” on possible regional cooperation. ITAR-TASS, December 5, 2007.
141 Martha Olcott, “A New Direction for U.S. Policy in the Caspian Region.”
142 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia, Hearing on
European and Eurasian Energy: Developing Capabilities for Security and Prosperity, Testimony of Ambassador
Richard L. Morningstar, Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy
, June 2, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
52

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

production at the Tengiz, Karachaganak, and Kashagan oil fields. While production is increasing
at the former two oil fields, the latter oil field has not yet produced oil. Development of the
Kashagan oil field began soon after its discovery in 2000, but has faced numerous delays and cost
overruns, attributable to the harsh offshore environment; the high pressure, depth, and sulfur
content of the oil; reported management problems; and Kazakh government interference.
Members of the North Caspian Operating Consortium developing the oil field currently include
Italy’s Eni energy firm, the Anglo-Dutch Shell, the U.S.’s ExxonMobil, France’s Total and
Kazakhstan’s KazMunaiGaz (all with a 16.81% stake) as well as the U.S.’s ConocoPhillips
(8.4%) and Japan's Inpex (7.56%). Phase one experimental/industrial production rising to
375,000-450,000 bpd is now expected to begin by mid-2013. The developmental cost of Phase
one has risen to $46 billion. The anticipated difficulty and cost of further development of the oil
field—which could result in production of up to 1.5 million bpd—have raised questions among
the foreign consortium members about the timeline and feasibility of such efforts, and contributed
to rising concerns by the Kazakh government that its hopes for rising revenues from the oil field
might need to be revised.143
Until recently U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) played a dominant role in the development of
Kazakhstani oil and gas resources, amounting to about $16.5 billion in Kazakhstan (over one-
third of all FDI in the country) from 1993-2012.144 According to some reports, China provided
about $13 billion in investments and loans to Kazakhstan’s energy sector in 2009, so its
cumulative FDI may eclipse U.S. FDI.
Some U.S. energy firms and other private foreign investors have become discouraged in recent
years by harsher Kazakh government terms, taxes, and fines that some allege reflect corruption
within the ruling elite. In 2009, the Karachaganak Petroleum Operating (KPO) consortium (the
main shareholder is British Gas, and U.S. Chevron is among other shareholders), which extracts
oil and gas from the Karachaganak fields in northwest Kazakhstan, was faced with an effort by
the Kazakh government to obtain 10% of the shares of the consortium. Facing resistance, the
government imposed hundreds of millions of dollars in tax, environmental, and labor fines and oil
export duties against KPO. Both the government and KPO appealed to international arbitration.
In December 2011, KPO agreed to transfer 10% of its shares to the Kazakh government, basically
gratis, and in exchange the government mostly lifted the fines and duties.145 In May 2012,
President Nazarbayev suggested that foreign energy firms operating in the country could help
finance domestic industrial projects.146
Kazakhstan’s main oil export route from the Tengiz oil field has been a 930-mile pipeline
completed in 2001—owned by the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), in which Russian

143 Alla Afanasyeva, “Kashagan's Big Oil Coming to Market in Mid-2013,” Reuters, August 10, 2012; “Kazakh Oil and
Gas Ministry Hopes for Speedy Settling of Budget of Kashagan Field’s First Phase,” Trend News Agency, April 26,
2012; “Total Wants First Oil from Kashagan before Year-End-CEO,” Reuters, May 11 2012; Robert Cutler, “Kashagan
Costs Surge,” Asia Times, January 21, 2012; Nariman Gizitdinov, “Biggest Find in Decades Becomes $39 Billion
Cautionary Tale,” Bloomberg, November 16, 2011.
144 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia, Hearing; U.S.
Engagement in Central Asia, Testimony by Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Central and South Asian
Affairs
, July 24, 2012.
145 Press Release: Agreement Reached with Republic of Kazakhstan on Karachaganak, BG Group, December 14, 2011,
at http://www.bg-group.com/MEDIACENTRE/PRESS/Pages/14Dec2010.aspx.
146 Georgiy Voloshin, “Kazakhstan’s Economic Proposals Reveal Fears about Political Instability,” CACI Analyst, June
13, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
53

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

shareholders have a controlling interest—that carried 693,000 bpd of oil in 2009 from Kazakhstan
to Russia’s Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. Kazakhstan’s other major oil export pipeline, from
Atyrau to Samara, Russia, has a capacity of approximately 730,000 bpd. See Error! Reference
source not found.
. Lengthy Russian resistance to increasing the pumping capacity of the CPC
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 Kazakh President
Nazarbayev to sign a treaty with visiting Azerbaijani President Aliyev in June 2006 to barge
Kazakh oil across the Caspian Sea to Baku to the BTC pipeline. Kazakhstan began shipping about
70,000 bpd of oil through the BTC pipeline at the end of October 2008. Another accord resulted
from a visit by President Nazarbayev to Azerbaijan in September 2009 that provides that up to
500,000 bpd of oil from the Kashagan field may be barged across the Caspian to enter the BTC or
the Baku-Supsa pipeline. When the volumes exceed 500,000 bpd, a trans-Caspian pipeline may
be built.
Apparently to counter Kazakh’s export plans via Azerbaijan, then-President Putin’s May 2007
agreement with Nazarbayev (see above) envisaged boosting the capacity of the CPC pipeline.
However, this project did not materialize in a timely fashion, so Kazakhstan proceeded to upgrade
its Caspian Sea port facilities. Kazakhstan also barges some oil to Baku to ship by rail to
Georgia’s Black Sea oil terminal at Batumi, of which Kazakhstan became the sole owner in early
2008. Kazakhstan began barging oil from Batumi to the Romanian port of Constantsa in late 2008
for processing at two refineries it purchased. Some Kazakh oil arriving in Baku also could be
transported through small pipelines to Georgia’s Black Sea port of Supsa or to Russia’s Black Sea
port of Novorossiisk, although in the latter case Kazakhstan might be faced with high transit
charges by Russia.147
In December 2010, the CPC approved a plan to upgrade the pumping capacity of the oil pipeline
to 1.4 million bpd, with several phases of construction through 2015. The increased capacity will
accommodate boosted production from the Tengiz and Karachaganak oil fields, as well as from
anticipated development of the Kashagan and Filanovsky oil fields (the latter is owned by
Russia). Construction reportedly has faced delays.
In addition to these oil export routes to Europe not controlled by Russia, in 2009 Kazakhstan and
China completed an oil pipeline from Kazakhstan’s port city of Atyrau to the Xinjiang region of
China that initially carries 200,000 bpd to China. Some Russian oil has been transported to China
through this pipeline, the first Russian oil to be transported by pipeline to China.
Russia is the major purchaser of Kazakh gas through the Central Asia-Center gas pipeline
network. According to British Petroleum (BP) data, Kazakhstan exported 422 bcf of gas to Russia
in 2010.148 Kazakhstan completed its sections of the Central Asia-China gas pipeline in 2009-
2010. At the end of October 2008, China and Kazakhstan signed a framework agreement on
constructing a gas pipeline from Beyneu, north of the Aral Sea, eastward to Shymkent, where it
will connect with the Central Asia-China gas pipeline. The pipeline is planned initially to supply
176.6 bcf to southern Kazakhstan and 176.6 bcf to China. Pipeline construction began in
September 2011 and to be completed by 2015.

147 ITAR-TASS, May 29, 2008; CEDR, December 11, 2007, Doc. No. CEP-950096; April 26, 2008, Doc. No. CEP-
950045.
148 “Natural Gas: Trade Movements 2010,” BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2011, p. 29.
Congressional Research Service
54

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Kazakh officials have appeared to make contradictory statements about providing gas for
European customers via a possible trans-Caspian pipeline traversing the South Caucasus and
Turkey. President Nazarbayev appeared to support the possible transit of Kazakh gas through
Turkey when he stated on October 22, 2009, during a visit to Turkey, that “Turkey ... will become
a transit country. And if Kazakhstan’s oil and gas are transported via this corridor then this will be
advantageous to both Turkey and Kazakhstan.”149 Reacting to the decision of the European
Commission to facilitate talks on building a trans-Caspian gas pipeline, Minister of Oil and Gas
Sauat Mynabyev stated in early October 2011 that “we do not have available resources for the gas
pipeline yet.”150
Turkmenistan’s Gas
Turkmenistan’s proven natural gas reserves—859 trillion cubic feet—are among the highest in
the world, according to British Petroleum (BP) data. Its oil reserves are significant but not among
the world’s largest.151
At the time it gained independence at the end of 1991, Turkmenistan largely was dependent on
Russian energy export routes, and gas and oil production were held back by aging infrastructure,
inadequate investment, and poor management. In 1993, Russia halted Turkmen gas exports to
Western markets through its pipelines, diverting Turkmen gas to other Eurasian states that had
trouble paying for the gas. In 1997, Russia cut off these shipments because of transit fee arrears
and as leverage to obtain Turkmenistan’s agreement to terms offered by Russia’s state-owned gas
firm Gazprom.
The late President Niyazov signed a 25-year accord with then-President Putin in 2003 on
supplying Russia up to 211.9 billion cubic feet (bcf) of gas in 2004 (about 12% of production at
that time), rising up to 2.83 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2009-2028 (perhaps amounting to the bulk
of anticipated 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.
Turkmenistan and Russia continued to clash in subsequent years over gas prices and finally
agreed in late 2007 that gas prices based on “market principles” would be established in 2009.
Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Russia signed accords in May and December 2007 on building a
new gas pipeline that was planned to carry 353 bcf of Turkmen and 353 bcf of Kazakh gas to
Russia. However, the Turkmen government appeared to have reservations about building another
pipeline to Russia, and the project reportedly is on hold.
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. In mid-2009, Turkmenistan reportedly agreed to increase gas supplies to up to
706 bcf per year.152 In January 2010, a second gas pipeline to Iran was completed—from a field
that until April 2009 had supplied gas to Russia (see below)—to more than double
Turkmenistan’s export capacity to Iran. However, Turkmen gas exports to Iran reportedly were
about 290 bcf in 2010.

149 CEDR, October 22, 2009, Doc. No. CEP-950337.
150 Interfax, October 6, 2011.
151 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, British Petroleum, June 2012.
152 Iran: Daily Report, January 21, 2008, Doc. No. IAP-11017; January 24, 2008, Doc. No. IAP-950014; April 26,
2008, Doc. No. IAP-950049; and May 6, 2008, Doc. No. IAP-950052.; CEDR, July 12, 2009, Doc. No. CEP-950097.
Congressional Research Service
55

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

As another alternative to pipelines through Russia, in 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 with a capacity of about 1.4 tcf per year through Uzbekistan and
Kazakhstan to China. All three Central Asian states plan to send gas through this pipeline to
China. Construction of the pipeline began in August 2007 and gas began to be delivered through
the pipeline to Xinjiang and beyond in December 2009. In 2011, Turkmenistan provided about
505 bcf of gas to China. In June 2012, Turkmenistan’s Turkmengaz and China’s National
Petroleum Corp (CNPC) signed accords to increase Turkmenistan’s natural gas shipments to
China up to 2.3 tcf per year.
Perhaps in an additional attempt to diversify gas export routes, Berdimuhamedow first signaled in
2007 that Turkmenistan was interested in building a trans-Caspian gas pipeline. Turkmenistan
signed a memorandum of understanding in April 2008 with the EU to supply 353.1 bcf of gas per
year starting in 2009, presumably through a trans-Caspian pipeline that might at first link to the
SCP and later to the proposed Nabucco pipeline. President Berdimuhamedow asserted in March
2011 that “Turkmenistan intends to promote cooperation in the fuel and energy sector with
European countries … through construction of Trans-Caspian gas pipelines.”153 Russia and Iran
remain opposed to trans-Caspian pipelines, ostensibly on the grounds that they could pose
environmental hazards to the littoral states.
Berdimuhamedow also revived Niyazov’s proposal to build a gas pipeline through Afghanistan to
Pakistan and India. In December 2010, the presidents of Turkmenistan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
and the prime minister of India signed an agreement on constructing the Turkmenistan-
Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline. On May 23, 2012, Turkmenistan signed
purchase agreements with India and Pakistan to supply up to 1.2 tcf of gas per year via the
prospective TAPI pipeline. U.S. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland hailed the
signing as “a perfect example of energy diversification, energy integration, done right. We are
very strong supporters of the TAPI pipeline.... We consider it a very positive step forward and sort
of a key example of what we’re seeking with our New Silk Road Initiative, which aims at
regional integration to lift all boats and create prosperity across the region.”154 Financing for the
project remains problematic, however, because of ongoing conflict in Afghanistan.
On the night of April 8-9, 2009, a section of a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Russia
exploded, halting Turkmen gas shipments. Russia claimed that it had notified Turkmenistan that it
was reducing its gas imports because European demand for gas had declined, but Turkmenistan
denied that it had been properly informed.155 After extended talks, visiting former Russian
President Dmitriy Medvedev and President Berdimuhamedow agreed on December 22, 2009, that
Turkmen gas exports to Russia would be resumed, and that the existing supply contract would be
altered to reduce Turkmen gas exports to up to 1 tcf per year and to increase the price paid for the
gas. Turkmenistan announced on January 9, 2010, that some gas exports to Russia had resumed.
The incident appeared to further validate Turkmenistan’s policy of diversifying its gas export
routes.

153 “President’s Welcoming Address,” Turkmenistan: The Golden Age, March 3, 2011, at
http://www.turkmenistan.gov.tm/_en/?idr=4&id=110303a.
154 U.S. Department of State, Daily Press Briefing, May 23, 2012.
155 Open Source Center. OSC Feature, April 14, 2009, Doc. No. FEA-844966; CEDR, April 14, 2009, Doc. No. CEP-
950339; ITAR-TASS, April 3, 2009; Sergey Blagov, “Turkmenistan: Ashgabat Wonders Whether Russia Still Has Deep
Pockets,” Eurasia Insight, March 26, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
56

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

In 2010, Russia’s Gazprom gas firm purchased only 371 bcf of Turkmen gas, a sharp drop-off
from past purchases. Unfortunately, Turkmen gas exports to Iran and China were not
compensatory. Overall Turkmen gas exports fell in 2010 to about 865 bcf, down from 1.7 tcf in
2008, before the Russian gas cutoff.156 In 2011, according to BP, Russia purchased 356.7 bcf of
Turkmen gas. Overall, Turkmen gas exports rose to 1.2 tcf in 2011, buoyed by Chinese and
Iranian purchases.
In September 2011, the Council of the European Union approved opening talks with Azerbaijan
and Turkmenistan to facilitate an accord on building a trans-Caspian gas pipeline. Such a link
would provide added gas to ensure adequate supplies for the planned Nabucco pipeline. Hailing
the decision, EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger stated that “Europe is now speaking
with one voice. The trans-Caspian pipeline is a major project in the Southern Corridor to bring
new sources of gas to Europe. We have the intention of achieving this as soon as possible.”157 The
Russian Foreign Ministry denounced the plans for the talks, and claimed that the Caspian Sea
littoral states had agreed in a declaration issued in October 2007 that decisions regarding the Sea
would be adopted by consensus among all the littoral states (Russia itself has violated this
provision by agreeing with Kazakhstan and with Azerbaijan on oil and gas field development). It
also claimed that the proposed pipeline was different from existing sub-sea pipelines in posing an
environmental threat.
In December 2010, the presidents of Turkmenistan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and the prime
minister of India signed an agreement on constructing the Turkmenistan- Afghanistan-Pakistan-
India (TAPI) gas pipeline. Turkmenistan long has called for building this pipeline to diversify its
export options. The Asian Development Bank has indicated that it may provide partial funding for
the TAPI pipeline, but other financing for the project remains problematic because of ongoing
conflict in Afghanistan. Support for TAPI is part of the Administration’s “new Silk Road vision”
(see below).
In June 2012, Azerbaijani border forces turned back a Turkmen ship carrying out seismic work in
or near the area of the disputed and undeveloped offshore Serder/Kyapaz oil and gas field. Two
other disputed fields have been developed by Azerbaijan. Each side lodged diplomatic protests
against the other. The heightened tensions over the disputed field decreases the likelihood that a
trans-Caspian pipeline soon will be built that could supply gas for the planned Trans-Anatolian
Pipeline to Europe, according to the EIU.
Uzbekistan
The U.S. Energy Department reports estimates that Uzbekistan has 594 million barrels of proven
oil reserves and an estimated 65 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves as of 2012
(negligible in terms of world oil reserves but about 1% of world gas reserves).158 Uzbekistan is a
net importer of oil. Uzbek oil production has been declining for many years, attributable to lack
of investment. The country consumes the bulk of its gas production domestically, but has used its
network of Soviet-era gas pipelines to export some gas to Russia and to other Central Asian states

156 “Turkmen Gas Could Find Chinese Outlet,” Central Asia Online, March 26, 2011.
157 European Commission, Press release: EU Starts Negotiations on Caspian Pipeline to Bring Gas to Europe,
September 12, 2011.
158 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Uzbekistan Country Analysis Brief, January 19,
2012.
Congressional Research Service
57

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

(Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan). Gas exports to the latter two states have been
substantially reduced in recent years because of payment arrears. According to BP, Uzbekistan
exported about 479 bcf of gas in 2010: 364 bcf of gas to Russia; 102 bcf to Kazakhstan; about 7
bcf to Kyrgyzstan; and about 6 bcf to Tajikistan. According to one report, gas exports declined to
424 bcf in 2011, but the government hopes to export 530 bcf in 2012. Gas is provided to Russia
and Kazakhstan through the Russian-owned Central Asia-Center Pipeline system. Uzbekistan
began to export some gas through this pipeline system to Ukraine in 2011. Reportedly,
Uzbekistan was an unreliable gas exporter during the winters of 2010-2011 and 2011-2012,
restricting supplies to divert them to cold-weather domestic use. In November 2011, Kazakhstan’s
major city of Almaty experienced shortages of gas imported from Uzbekistan, leading it to
urgently conclude an agreement with the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) to
obtain gas from the Central Asia-China Pipeline.159
Uzbekistan largely has been closed to Western energy investment, although efforts to attract
international energy firms have appeared to increase in recent years. Russian firms Gazprom and
Lukoil are the largest investors in Uzbek gas development and production. Reportedly, Gazprom
pays European-pegged gas prices for only a fraction of imports from Uzbekistan. In 2005, CNPC
and Uzbekistan’s state-owned Uzbekneftegaz firm announced that they would form a joint
venture to develop oil and gas resources. In 2007, Uzbekistan and China signed an agreement on
building a 326-mile section of the Central Asia-China Pipeline, and a construction and operation
joint venture between Uzbekneftegaz and CNPC began construction in 2008. Two side-by-side
pipelines have been completed, and the third is under construction. In October 2011, Uztransgaz
(Uzbek gas transportation firm) and a subsidiary of CNPC signed a contract to supply up to 353
billion cubic feet of gas in 2012 though this pipeline (other sources stated that Uzbekistan
planned to supply up to 141 billion cubic feet). However, Uzbekistan has reported that these
shipments began only in August 2012. In April 2012, China announced it would spend $15 billion
for oil and gas exploration in Uzbekistan. A production sharing consortium composed of
Uzbekneftegaz, Lukoil, the Korea National Oil Corporation, and CNPC is exploring for gas in the
Aral Sea region.
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 FY2010
amounted to $5.7 billion, about 14% of the amount budgeted to all the Eurasian states, reflecting
the lesser priority given to these states prior to September 11.
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
former Bush Administration since then requested smaller amounts of aid, although the
Administration continued to stress that there were important U.S. interests in the region. The
former Bush Administration highlighted the phase-out of economic aid to Kazakhstan and the
Congressionally imposed restrictions on aid to Uzbekistan (see below) as among the reasons for
declining aid requests. In April 2008, then-Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher stated

159 Interfax, November 14, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
58

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

that another reason for declining U.S. aid to the region was a more constrained U.S. budgetary
situation. Aid to Central Asia in recent years has been about the same or less in absolute and
percentage terms than that provided to the South Caucasian region.
The Obama Administration boosted aid to Central Asia in FY2009 to about $494.5 million (all
agencies and programs), but aid declined to $436.3 million in FY2010, despite a boost in
assistance to Kyrgyzstan (see below). Budgeted “function 150” foreign assistance to Central Asia
was $125.8 in FY2011 and an estimated $133.7 million in FY2012, and the Administration has
requested $118.4 million in “function 150” aid for Central Asia for FY2013 (see Table 1, Table 2
and Table 3).160 The Administration stated in FY2010 and FY2011 that it was prioritizing foreign
assistance to Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. In Tajikistan, the Administration stated that aid would
help increase the stability of a country “situated on the frontline of our ongoing military
stabilization efforts in Afghanistan.” In Kyrgyzstan, the Administration stated that aid would
improve security, combat drug-trafficking, reform the economy, and address food insecurity.161
Following the April and June 2010 instability in Kyrgyzstan, the Administration provided $77.6
million in addition to regular appropriated aid for stabilizing the economy, holding elections, and
training police as well as urgent food and shelter aid.
The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), created in 2004 to provide U.S. aid to countries
with promising development records, announced in late 2005 that Kyrgyzstan was eligible to
apply for assistance as a country on the “threshold” of meeting the criteria for full-scale
development aid. In March 2008, the MCC signed an agreement with Kyrgyzstan to provide $16
million over the next two years to help the country combat corruption and bolster the rule of law.
This threshold program was completed in June 2010, and Kyrgyzstan has requested another
threshold grant. In its FY2013 assessment, the MCC named Krygyzstan as a candidate for a
Millennium Challenge Compact.
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. The conference report (H.Rept.
108-10) also introduced language that 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.162 The Secretary reported in mid-2003 that

160 The “function 150” aid numbers include funds from the Aid for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia (AEECA)
account, Global Health and Child Survival (GHCS), Non-proliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related
Programs (NADR), Foreign Military Financing (FMF), International Military Education and Training (IMET), and
Food for Peace. The totals do not include Defense or Energy Department funds, funding for exchanges, the value of
privately-donated cargoes, or Millennium Challenge Corporation aid to Kyrgyzstan.
161 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations for FY2010, May 2009, p. 44;
Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations for FY2011, Volume II, March 2010, p. 85.
162 The language calling for “substantial progress” in respecting human rights differs from the grounds of ineligibility
for assistance under Section 498(b) of Part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195), which includes as
grounds a presidential determination that a Soviet successor state has “engaged in a consistent pattern of gross
violations of internationally recognized human rights.” The Administration has stated annually that the president has
not determined that Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have engaged in “gross violations” of human rights.
Congressional Research Service
59

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan were making such progress. Some in Congress were critical of these
findings. By late 2003, the former Bush Administration had decided that progress was inadequate
in Uzbekistan. Since FY2005, the Secretary of State annually has reported that Kazakhstan has
failed to significantly improve its human rights record, but aid restrictions have been waived on
national security grounds.
Consolidated Appropriations for FY2004, including foreign operations (P.L. 108-199) and for
FY2005 (P.L. 108-447), and Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY2006 (P.L. 109-102)
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. These conditions remained in place under the continuing resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 109-
289, as amended). In appropriations for FY2008 (Consolidated Appropriations; P.L. 110-161),
another condition was added blocking the admission of Uzbek officials to the United States if the
Secretary of State determines that they were involved in abuses in Andijon. Omnibus
Appropriations for FY2009 (P.L. 111-8, Sections 7075 [Kazakhstan] and 7076 [Uzbekistan])
reiterated these conditions on assistance to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Consolidated
Appropriations for FY2010 (P.L. 111-117) referenced Sections 7075 and 7076, but added that
Uzbekistan would be eligible for expanded IMET. The Department of Defense and Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, FY2011 (P.L. 112-10), directed that assistance would be provided
under the authorities and conditions of FY2010 foreign operations appropriations.
In late 2009, Congress permitted (P.L. 111-84, §801)—for the first time since restrictions on aid
to Uzbekistan were put in place—the provision of some assistance on national security grounds to
facilitate the acquisition of supplies for U.S. and NATO operations in Afghanistan from countries
along the Northern Distribution Network. In 2012, $100,000 is requested under the Foreign
Military Financing program to provide non-lethal equipment to facilitate Uzbekistan’s protection
of the Northern Distribution Network.
On September 22, 2011, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a foreign operations
appropriations bill, S. 1601 (Leahy), that provides for a waiver for assistance to Uzbekistan on
national security grounds and to facilitate U.S. access to and from Afghanistan. According to one
media account, the Administration had called for such a waiver in order to facilitate security
assistance, including FMF, for Uzbekistan.163 Some human rights groups have protested against
the possible bolstering of U.S. security assistance to Uzbekistan.164 Consolidated Appropriations
for FY2012 (P.L. 112-74; signed into law on December 23, 2011) provides for the Secretary of
State to waive conditions on assistance to Uzbekistan for a period of not more than six months
and every six months thereafter until September 30, 2013, on national security grounds and as
necessary to facilitate U.S. access to and from Afghanistan. The law requires that the waiver
include an assessment of democratization progress, and calls for a report on aid provided to

163 Joshua Kucera, “Uzbekistan: Military Aid to Tashkent Would Help Protect NDN - State Department,” Eurasianet,
September 28, 2011.
164 International Crisis Group (ICG), “Joint Letter to Secretary Clinton Regarding Uzbekistan,” States News Service,
September 27, 2011; Human Rights Watch, “Don't Lift Restrictions Linked to Human Rights until Tashkent Shows
Improvement,” States News Service, September 7, 2011. The joint letter by ICG and other human rights groups called
on Secretary Clinton to affirm that “U.S. policies towards the Uzbek government will not fundamentally change absent
meaningful human rights improvements, including the release of imprisoned pro-democracy activists, an end to
harassment of civil society groups, effective steps to end torture, and the elimination of forced child labor in the cotton
sector.”
Congressional Research Service
60

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Uzbekistan, including expenditures made in support of the NDN in Uzbekistan and any credible
information that such assistance or expenditures are being diverted for corrupt purposes. The law
also extends a provision permitting expanded IMET assistance for Uzbekistan.
In January 2012, the State Department issued the waiver for assistance to Uzbekistan, assessing
human rights conditions as of “serious concern.”
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.
Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance to Central Asia,
FY1992 to FY2011, and the FY2012 Request
(millions of current dollars)
FY1992 thru
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
Central Asian
FY2010
Actualb
Estimateb
Requestb
Country
Budgeteda
Kazakhstan 2,050.4
17.57
18.79
14.9
Kyrgyzstan
1,221.71 41.36 47.05 46.73
Tajikistan
988.57 44.48 45.02 37.41
Turkmenistan 351.55 11.01 9.89 6.73
Uzbekistan 971.36
11.34
12.94
12.6
Regional 130.44
--
--
--
Total
5,714.03 125.76 133.69 118.37
As a Percentage of
14% 23%
25%
26%
aid to Eurasia
Sources: State Department, Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia, Congressional
Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2013, Annex: Regional Programs
, March 2012.
a. Includes funds from the Aid for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia (AEECA) account and Agency budgets.
Excludes some classified coalition support funding.
b. Includes funds from the Aid for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia account (AEECA; now these funds are
part of Economic Support Funds) and other “Function 150” programs. Does not include Defense or Energy
Department funds or funding for exchanges.


Congressional Research Service
61

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Table 2. U.S. Assistance to Central Asia, FY1992-FY2001
(millions of current dollars)
Country
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Kazakhstan 20.33 51.47 202.75 138.85 79.32 53.52 75.85 72.60 77.95 80.01
Kyrgyzstan 13.03
108.22 90.36 44.43 63.63 23.85 50.29 61.12 49.73 43.07
Tajikistan
11.61 33.72 45.26 33.71 45.36 14.75 36.57 38.16 38.69 76.48
Turkmenistan 14.71 57.28 22.38 21.82 25.33 6.25 8.94 15.94 10.91 12.57
Uzbekistan
5.62 15.00 34.07 14.44 23.34 30.88 26.84 46.88 39.06 48.33
Regional
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.60 7.87 0.00 4.50 7.57
Total
65.3 265.69 394.82 253.25 256.98 129.85 206.36 234.7 220.84 268.03
Source: Derived from U.S. Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Europe and Eurasia.
Notes: Includes all agencies and accounts.
Table 3. U.S. Assistance to Central Asia, FY2002-FY2010 (and Totals, FY1992-FY2010)
(millions of current dollars)
Total
(FY1992-
Country
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
FY2010)
Kazakhstan
97.4 97.88 111.00 84.91 81.31 167.55 179.52 220.28 157.90
2,050.4
Kyrgyzstan 94.47 53.85 55.25 55.23 43.44 71.25 71.23
111.74
117.52
1,221.71
Tajikistan 136.34 48.71 53.01 65.69 42.81 49.94 67.33 67.44 82.99
988.57
Turkmenistan 18.93 10.98 10.42 18.94 10.44 19.84 16.83 20.78 28.26
351.55
Uzbekistan 224.14 90.77 84.25 78.28 49.30 35.90 38.33 48.55 37.38
971.36
Regional
13.88 9.99 3.41 5.02 5.43 7.59 6.66
25.71
12.21
130.44
Total
585.16 312.18 317.34 308.07 232.73 352.07 379.9 494.5 436.26
5,714.03
Source: Derived from U.S. Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Europe and Eurasia.
Notes: Includes all agencies and accounts.
CRS-62



Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests

Figure 1. Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan

Source: CRS (September 2010).
CRS-63

Central Asia: Regional Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests



Author Contact Information

Jim Nichol

Specialist in Russian and Eurasian Affairs
jnichol@crs.loc.gov, 7-2289

Congressional Research Service
64