#19 - JRL 7265
The Economist (UK)
July 25-August 1, 2003
Survey
Central Asia
At the crossroads
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Central Asia has tried to reinvent itself, so far with mixed success. It is in everyone's interest to help this traditionally turbulent region do better, says Caroline Lambert

WHEN on September 11th 2001 the western world was brutally reminded about Afghanistan, it also had its memory jogged about Central Asia. In the 1980s, the Afghan mujahideen resisting Soviet occupation had received generous American support. But in 1989, when Russian troops packed their bags and went home, American interest in Afghanistan waned. Once the Central Asian countries had become independent from the former Soviet Union in 1991, America concentrated its attention in the region on Soviet nuclear leftovers, the decommissioning of which it hailed as a great success. When the Taliban took over in 1996, the Americans did not seem overly concerned that the bearded rulers and their al-Qaeda friends were supporting radical Islamic groups in Central Asia.

It was not until the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington that the superpower rediscovered Afghanistan and the wider region. Central Asian countries, worried about their southern neighbour and trying to fight their own brand of terrorism, were eager to help sort out the Afghan mess. Kirgizstan and Uzbekistan gave permission for American military bases on their soil. Kazakhstan and Tajikistan allowed American planes to fly over their territory. Only Turkmenistan maintained a studied neutrality. All Central Asian countries also played a key role in delivering humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. Overnight, a region that had disappeared from western radar screens found itself in the thick of the battle against terrorism.

A couple of years on from September 11th, the region once again seems in danger of being forgotten. The West, expecting its new Central Asian friends quickly to embrace economic and political reform, has been disappointed by slow progress in some areas and by their disregard for human rights and political freedom. Yet although the world's attention has shifted to Iraq and other members of the “axis of evil”, this survey will argue that it would be unwise to let Central Asia slip back into geopolitical oblivion.

Bumpy Silk Road

Central Asia is strategically placed at the crossroads between Europe and China, Russia and Iran. Throughout its history, this has been a both blessing and a curse. Trade between West and East moved through Central Asia along the famed Silk Road, bringing development and prosperity. But the region was also repeatedly invaded by powerful conquerors with imperial ambitions, from the Scythes and Mongols to the Russians.

In Central Asia, the Turkic nomads met up with the Muslim and Persian world. Turkish and Persian cultures and languages blended to form a strong local identity. Even after the Arab conquest, Persian remained the language of local rulers, as Iranian administrators, mullahs and traders settled in the cities of Transoxania (which covered much of today's Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan), and is the basis of the language spoken by the Tajiks today. The Turks and their language progressively gained influence, however, and Turkish dynasties eventually became the rulers of Transoxania in 999. After many more twists and turns, in the 19th century Russia and Britain vied for influence in the region in what Rudyard Kipling called the “Great Game”. The prize they sought was India.

Although Central Asia shares a common history and culture, there are plenty of differences among its constituent parts. Olivier Roy, a Paris-based specialist on Central Asia, points to the cultural split in the region between the nomads from the steppes and mountains, mainly Kirgizs, Kazakhs and Turkmens, and the sedentary, mainly urban Uzbeks and Tajiks who settled in the river basins of Transoxania. This split was responsible for distinct cultural, religious and political identities that survive to this day.

The cultural split, however, ignores borders. Today's Central Asian states were Soviet creations which, before 1991, had no history as separate, independent countries. After decades of Soviet rule and careful manipulation of language and history, they suddenly found themselves independent but without anything much to hold them together. They were also saddled with large ethnic minorities.

That these countries have managed to remain intact and weather the economic, social and political storm following the collapse of the Soviet Union is therefore no small achievement. Tajikistan, torn by civil war for much of the 1990s, has now settled down, and the wave of Islamic terrorism that hit the region a few years ago seems to have receded for the moment.

Since independence, the individual Central Asian states have made different political and economic choices which have meant that the contrasts between them are now quite striking. Kazakhstan and Kirgizstan have embraced noticeably more ambitious economic and political reforms than the rest of the region. Kazakhstan, with its large Russian minority and more developed economy, feels far more European than its neighbours. In terms of natural resources, mainly oil and gas, Kazakhstan's and Turkmenistan's relative wealth contrasts with Kirgizstan's and Tajikistan's poverty.

Although all the countries seem stable for now, the calm is deceptive. Worrying signs of increased authoritarianism and political repression are everywhere. Regional divisions come at a high political and economic cost. Poverty remains pervasive, fuelling social discontent. And drugs from Afghanistan threaten to damage the region's fragile social fabric and undermine the state. But to the outside world, the question of most immediate concern is probably whether Islamic radicalism is likely to revive