(Since the story tonight about Clinton and a rich dude and a Kazakhstan dictator and uranium came out, thought I'd check out what has been happening over there with the Bush regime.
Clinton was over there with his rich buddy about a month after this story came out.)
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Kazakhstan's delicate foreign policy, predicated upon balancing its relations among China, Russia, and the United States, has come under increased pressure both from its involvement in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the growing tendency within the region to question the long-term strategic role of the U.S. military in Central Asia. The SCO's request that Washington set a deadline for its military presence in the region has exposed Astana's foreign policy paradigm to a severe test. Equally, senior and well-placed Kazakhstani analysts have raised objections to the need for a sustained U.S. military presence in the region and praised President Nursultan Nazarbayev's efforts to avoid basing American forces in Kazakhstan.
Kazakhstan has developed a close bilateral defense relationship with the U.S. and deepened its commitment to NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP). Its open demonstration of supporting the war on terror has been shown by steadfast adherence to the deployment of elements of its peacekeeping unit (KAZBAT) in Iraq. There are no tangible signs that Astana is considering backtracking on any of these steps; it has no need to do so. Nevertheless, Kazakhstan's support for the SCO's call for the U.S. to think in terms of a timetable for getting out of Central Asia has been explained by reference to pressure from China and Russia. General Richard Myers, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, has reportedly interpreted the position of the Central Asian members of the SCO in precisely this manner.
However, the Kazakhstani media has presented an alternative interpretation. According to Delovaya nedelya, the driving force behind Astana's strategic choice in favor of the SCO is rooted in its fear of the potential spread of "color revolutions." Such fears predispose the Nazarbayev regime to open a more constructive dialogue on the region's future with Beijing and Moscow. Simultaneously, the same article argues the existence of the link between Britain's support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the recent London bombings, pointing to the level of risk to Kazakh security taken in its current deployment of KAZBAT in Iraq. Such articles are not anti-American, as they also offer the other side of Kazakhstan's dilemma: falling hostage to China and Russia (Delovaya nedelya, July 22).
Bolat Sultanov, director of Kazakhstan's Institute for Strategic Studies under the Kazakh president, has gone much further in his opposition to any continued American military presence in Central Asia. He objects that it undermines Russian and Chinese security. Convinced that the United States must withdraw its military personnel, he argues that the spirit of the SCO is contravened by the presence of foreign military bases. "I am categorically against the presence of the military bases in Central Asia because any military base is an occupation base. By the way, I cannot understand Central Asian countries' euphoria about the military bases. Everywhere there are military bases people are demanding that the bases be pulled out. Look at Europe, South Korea, and Japan," explained Sultanov (Interfax-Kazakhstan, August 10). Sultanov's position is not entirely new, having previously postulated such ideas, but what is unclear is the role and influence his open and public hostility towards the U.S. military presence will have on domestic public opinion and, perhaps more significantly, within the Nazarbayev regime itself.
more...
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2370152