Interview with S. Frederick Starr, a Research Professor at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University.

Question: What role do Central Asian countries play in global politics?

Starr: I would say that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. In other words, the region in the bigger sense is of critical importance to many global issues, even though considering it on a country-by-country basis, we tend to undervalue the region. It is obviously of central importance in the energy sector but it is also important in the production of essential minerals, including uranium, molybdenum, zinc, etc. Also, as a region it is the second largest producer of cotton in the world.

But beyond that, the absolute importance of Central Asia derives from the fact that it is in the center of everything. It is the only region in the world surrounded entirely by nuclear powers. Note that its neighbors include nuclear India, China, Russia Pakistan, potentially Iran and also a NATO power, Turkey. It is the areas where the economic and geopolitical forces all converge, so it inevitably important.

Question: How would you characterize the Central Asian countries, what are the main weaknesses and strength of these countries?

Starr: We have to appreciate that these are all new states. There was not a Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan before; these were all republics of the USSR. And we must recognize that they all suffer from birth defects that were imparted to them by their colonial ruler, Russia. These defects are numerous, and begin with the borders, which in many cases are capricious and were designed almost deliberately to assure that there would be complications. Bureaucratization, centralization, and corruption are other legacies of the Soviet past. When you consider all the birth defects, these countries have done admirably well since independence, especially by avoiding intraregional conflict. They know each other extremely well, they know when they can push and when they have to make a deal, and to their credit they have always curtailed their disagreements short of conflict.

Question: How would you assess the role of Russia, China and the SCO in Central Asia?

Starr:  It’s common to speak of so-called “Great Game” in Central Asia. This arises from the reality of its central geographical position. Central Asia, of course, is not simply the five former Soviet republics. Afghanistan has been for 3000 years the very heart of Central Asia. Alexander the Great understood that very well, and his geographical advisor Aristotle trained him well on that point. This larger Central Asian region is defined by its position between the great Indian, Chinese, Middle Eastern and Russian cultural zones. All of them –and not just Russia and/or China--feel that this is their back yard. Over time, I am sure the Central Asians will establish balanced relations with all of them.

The United States also has very significant interests there, as well as Japan, Europe and Korea. What is emerging over time, thanks to the Central Asians themselves, is the concept of balance among the external powers, not only Russia, China and the United States, but also India, Europe, Japan and so forth. The stronger this balance grows, the better it is for everyone. No one country or grouping of countries can or should dominate this region; to seek this would be a formula for disaster. Many wise people in Russia appreciate this; in time the government will as well.

Question: British geopolitics expert Sir Halford J. Makkinder predicted in the beginning of the 20th century that whoever rules Central Asia controls Eurasia and whoever rules Eurasia controls the world. How would you assess this statement?

Starr: That is the kind of colonial statement that came naturally during Makkinder’s time, and unfortunately comes equally naturally to many Russians and some Chinese today. The reality is that none of these external powers have considered the possibility that this Greater Central Asia region can rule itself. Why does it have to be controlled by external powers? Why can’t it be a legitimate center in its own right? Why should it be an object to be moved around on a chessboard rather than a juridical subject with rights and capacity for self rule? Why should Central Asia in the 21-st century be discussed in the colonial terms of the 19-th century? Yet that is exactly what many persist in doing. And where the Central Asians are absolutely united among themselves, and rightfully so, is in their insistence that they be enabled to practice self government on a national and regional basis, without being controlled from the outside.

Question: How is the relationship between the United States and the Central Asian countries?

Starr: The United States was an early and sturdy supporter of their sovereignty and promoter of economic and social development there. Thousands and thousands of young people from all over Central Asia, including of course Afghanistan, have studied in the United States. The U.S. has undertaken humanitarian assistance, initiated a vast number of projects that are absolutely unknown to most Americans but which had a very positive impact there. And the U.S. has taken the lead from the beginning in NATO’s Partnership for Peace, which has had a very positive effect on the Central Asian military, fostering modernization and transforming them to function in a more democratic environment.

That said, in the last few years there has been a reduction of focus from the American side, and the Russians and Chinese have rushed to fill what they wrongly concluded was a geopolitical vacuum. However, during the last year you can see clear signs that the U.S. is reengaging, and even under the more difficult economic circumstances today I think you will see this process continuing and strengthening. The effect of this will be to help countries in the region, all of them, to maintain that all-important balance among the external powers that is the key to their sovereignty and self-determination.   

Question: What are the long term interests of the United States in Central Asia?

Starr: The United States has several interests there. First, it is the avoidance of conflict among major powers. If any of the surrounding nuclear powers and great regional states bump heads in this region it would be bad for everyone. The potential for conflict is very great since many of their interests are fundamentally competitive. This is clearly the case with Russia and China, where competition and cooperation between them are locked in a permanent struggle that both find it difficult to manage. The U.S. has an interest in making sure that this does not become a zone where external powers come into conflict. Second, this region has most of the world’s existing secular states in Muslim societies. This is a very different model of development from most other countries in the Muslim world. Notwithstanding all the flaws of the judiciary in Central Asian, the countries of the region, including now Afghanistan as well, have fundamentally western type legal systems that are compatible with those of the developed world. The U.S has a very keen interest in the further development of this law-based and secular model. It is also interested in the advancement there of modern secular education, which is already strongly rooted in the former Soviet regions and developing rapidly in Afghanistan. It is relevant to the entire Muslim world, and is the best alternative to the kind of theocratic and autocratic thinking that led to 9/11. Beyond that, the U.S. has an interest in helping these countries get their most valuable products and commodities to markets without being controlled by any external powers. So I would say our objectives are both negative-- one the prevention of conflict over the region, and positive--mainly the promotion of secular and law-based governments in well-educated Muslim societies. This is a noble ideal and worth all the attention we, along with other developed countries, can devote to it.

Let me say a few words about how these objectives can be achieved. It’s one thing to have noble objectives and it’s another to achieve them. I think the chief engine for the promotion of these policies is going to be exactly what it is been for 3000 years, and that is the development of continental trade across the region. And by that I mean trucks running form Hamburg to Hanoi, from the Middle East to Shanghai, from Scandinavia to India, and all of them crossing Central Asia. The reopening of this continental trade is the great prospect that has emerged since the collapse of the USSR and the destruction of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. If America persists in supporting this development it will be engaging in a transformational policy that is against no-one and from which everyone benefits.

Question: How is the U.S. policy towards Central Asia going to change under the newly elected President Barack Obama?

Starr: I think that American foreign policy is more bipartisan than partisan, more evolutionary than revolutionary, although changes can, of course, be expected. The immediate engine for change will be America’s growing realization over the last two years that it makes sense to provision Afghanistan from Central Asia, as well as from Pakistan.

Question: To which countries does the U.S. give more or less priority in Central Asia?

Starr: I don’t think that U.S. plays favorites or should play favorites, and it defiantly should not play countries against each other. There are countries with which we inevitably find more commonalities, but even this list evolves over time. I noted earlier that U.S. policy in every country of the region has become more active over the last year, and expect this upward trend to continue. 

Question: What kind of scenarios do you see in the future development of Central Asia if the situation there continues the way it has?

Starr: There is a tendency both in the West and Russia to seek out and emphasize the darker scenarios. I don’t share that view. For all their problems, the Central Asians have brilliantly succeeded in a number of areas. Their new sovereignties are all confirmed, so no country is going to be absorbed into another. The borders have all been delineated and even though there are some sharp disagreements, the countries are at peace with one another. For all its complications, the intensity of the conflict in Afghanistan since the break up of the USSR is much lower than formerly. We have seen the establishment of new legal systems, the partial and in some cases complete privatization of the economies, and thousands of young people gaining access to education that goes beyond the Soviet model of rote learning.  One has to respect these achievements. I remind you that the United States after 1776 took another seven years before it arrived at a workable constitution and even that document didn’t initially include the bill of rights. Real change takes time, but I think the direction of evolution across Greater Central Asia is on the whole positive. Kazakhstan is already accepted as a middle class state. No-one would have imagined that a Central Asian state could become president of OSCE. And who would have expected the measured but real changes taking place in Turkmenistan? These are all developments that augur well for the future. We should understand that the countries of Central Asia will go at their own pace, which will not be the same everywhere. But in terms of their ideals and values, they all share a great deal with us, which they acknowledge and which provides the basis for cordial relations in the future.