Manas Hysteria

Manas air base, located near Bishkek, has been an important hub supporting the war effort in Afghanistan since the U.S. military opened it in December 2001. Since then, Manas's operations have been threatened by political instability more than once. The root of these recurring basing headaches lies in the fact that the United States simply lacks the authority to establish a military presence in Central Asia. But paying off the Kyrgyz is a short-term solution that will backfire in the long term. Instead, to protect Manas further down the road, the United States must convince the Kyrgyz people that it is interested in more than a transactional relationship

The Afghanization of Central Asia

President Barack Obama's decision to escalate the US military presence in Afghanistan has generated heated debate. Largely lost in the swirl of discussion is the surge's hidden cost on neighboring Central Asian states

America and Empire: Thoughts on a Debate

In a recent issue of Foreign Affairs, Alex Motyl posed the question, "Do past empires hold lessons for U.S. foreign policy today?" In a review of two new books (an edited volume by Craig Calhoun and a study by Charles Maier), he concluded that "efforts [to show that they do] yield little payoff." To be sure, the use of the term "empire" has become commonplace in descriptions of contemporary U.S. foreign policy. Yet, save for a small group of exceptions, American political scientists until now have mostly neglected the theoretical investigation of empires and the dynamics of imperial relations. Filling a massive gap in the literature, political scientists Dan Nexon and Thomas Wright's new article "What's at Stake in the American Empire Debate" published in the May 2007 American Political Science Review is one of the most thought-provoking and policy relevant scholarly articles to appear in recent years in the field. The article builds on much of Nexon's previous work on the network properties of early-modern empires, but applies these insights to some of the central problems confronting today's U.S. foreign policy community

Georgia: Examining Possible Sovereign Futures and the Internationalization Option

At a recent special panel on the Georgian crisis convened at the Bled Strategic Forum, European foreign ministers and representatives of international organizations lamented that they had failed to adequately engage Georgia's unresolved or "frozen conflicts." Since the early 1990s, the international community effectively ignored the disputes between Tbilisi and Abkhazia and South Ossetia, allowing tensions to fester until in early August the disputes escalated into a six-day war between Georgia and Russia. Russia's subsequent recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence has legally challenged Georgia's very territorial integrity and sovereign boundaries. While much of the West struggles to enforce a precarious ceasefire and formulate a common response to Russia's actions, it is worth considering the exact sovereign forms that might govern Georgia in the near future. Three options - indefinite occupation, formal partition or international administration - are possible; though all three pose risks, the internationalization option, the least discussed thus far, may offer the best blueprint for stabilizing the region and eventually resolving status issues

How the Democratic Tide Rolled Back

Twenty-five years ago the world entered a new era. The Soviet Union had just collapsed, the United States had assumed the leadership of a proclaimed new world order, and liberal democratic capitalism no longer had a viable global challenger. The expectations these changes heralded now appear unfulfilled. Illiberalism is surging around the world, and the post-Cold War era is rapidly giving way to a post-liberal order. Moreover, the very post-Communist states that seemingly were at the epicenter of a liberal transformation have pioneered the counter-norms and tactics that now spread to the West itself

Kyrgyzstan: The Five Lessons of the Great American Air Base Debate

As the Kyrgyz government continues to balance intricate negotiations with both Washington and Moscow over the future of the American military base at Manas, US policymakers would do well to reflect on their recent experience in the Kyrgyz Republic. Though it is tempting to blame the cash-strapped regime of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev and a meddlesome Russia for the difficulties currently faced by the United States in Kyrgyzstan, US planners and officials made their own fair share of faulty assumptions and missteps in dealing with the Manas issue

A Response to Baev and Lewis

Cooley responds to Baev and Lewis

In Central Asia, Public Cooperation and Private Rivalry

This New York Times op-ed examines the behind- the-scenes tension in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a Central Asian regional security body comprised of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan

Okinawa: A Crack in the Pacific Pivot to Asia

In Okinawa, the complex local politics that surround the U.S. basing presence have entered an uncertain new phase–one that threatens to derail the new security consensus held by Tokyo and Washington

The Elusive Quest for Political Stability: Diverging Approaches by the United States, Russia, and China in Central Asia and Beyond

The seeming growing call to maintain political stability in Central Asia masks fundamental differences in how the United States, Russia and China approach the practices of conflict-resolution, governance and political practice in the region. Stability, and how to achieve it, have different meanings to these external patrons, while securing it remains elusive in this volatile region