We are unable to display your institutional affiliation without JavaScript turned on.
Browse Book and Journal Content on Project MUSE

Find using OpenURL

Domestic Challenges, International Opportunities: Understanding Security Cooperation in Central Asia

From: Asia Policy
Number 16, July 2013
pp. 179-181 | 10.1353/asp.2013.0033

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Central Asian countries are often defined as passive observers of the U.S., Russian, and Chinese rivalry, a conflict of interests that resembles the Great Game between Great Britain and tsarist Russia roughly a century ago. The comparison is often drawn for lack of a better empirical understanding of how Central Asia's five post-Soviet countries function on the international scene, while the United States' interest in the region significantly increased in the post-September 11 era, much to the dismay of neighboring Russia and China.

Alexander Cooley's Great Games, Local Rules: The New Great Power Contest in Central Asia dispels the myth that these "big three" are locked into constant competition. While competition among the United States, Russia, and China exists, there are also instances of collaboration on joint goals, mimicking of one another's policies, and opportunities to free ride, owing to various security arrangements led by one or another of the three.

Yet it is the Central Asian political elites who seem to benefit the most from the increased interest of global powers. The political elites in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan have developed "local rules" for playing the big three against each other for the benefit of domestic audiences, primarily to prevail over political rivals and strengthen their own hold on power. The most blatant example of leveraging the Kremlin's displeasure with the U.S. military to benefit the mercantile interests of the political elites comes from Kyrgyzstan's former president, Kurmanbek Bakiyev. In 2009, Bakiyev secured both a $2 billion loan from Russia and a significant increase in U.S. payments to use an airbase in Bishkek by first announcing that he would expel the U.S. military from the base and then four months later changing his mind. Uzbekistan president Islam Karimov has also been skillful in keeping both Russia and the United States nervous about his engagement in regional initiatives, such as the Moscow-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) or providing access to the U.S.-NATO Northern Distribution Network for Afghanistan.

Just as Cooley uncovers the patrimonial logic of the Central Asian leaders' foreign policy, he also shows how each of the big three powers at one time or another developed patron-client relations with the Central Asian states. Seeking to advance their own interests in the region, Moscow, Washington, and Beijing often ignored reports of human rights abuses and were ready to engage with corrupt leaders if needed. By explaining the logic of the big three's policy decisions in Central Asia since the September 11 terrorist attacks, Great Games, Local Rules is as much a book about transnational and domestic corruption as it is about international relations.

The book also demonstrates how regional actors—India, South Korea, Turkey, and Japan—were effectively squeezed out of Central Asia by the overwhelming presence of the big three. Those countries, although sharing economic and political interests in the region, were unable to build trade relations and political alliances with the Central Asian countries because these niches were quickly filled by regional organizations led by Russia, China, and the United States.

Great Games, Local Rules offers a rich analytical and empirical basis for further research in both international relations and Central Asian studies. The book poses three interrelated questions about how local rules developed in response to the global powers' competition in Central Asia. First, are local rules in Central Asia the sign of a new norm in which small countries play great powers against each other instead of looking for win-win solutions? Are they emerging as a result of declining Western influence? Beyond Central Asia, does the collaboration among several global powers and small states follow a similar logic? Cooley explains the emergence of local rules as the product of a post-Western world in which the United States must compete with regional powers.

Second, how uniform are the local rules of Central Asia? The ousting of Bakiyev in 2010 demonstrated that erratic foreign policy breeds corruption and angers opposition groups. By contrast, Kazakhstan president Nursultan Nazarbayev's balanced foreign policy has led to years of fruitful relations with Washington, Moscow, and Beijing and contributed to...

You must be logged in through an institution that subscribes to this journal or book to access the full text.


Shibboleth authentication is only available to registered institutions.

Project MUSE

For subscribing associations only.