RSS

There are very diverse and sometimes contradictory perceptions of NATO in Central Asia, which are obvious in the comments and debates over this issue among experts and political scientists in Kazakhstan. Some say that Kazakhstan is playing a dangerous game that will be over when it is forced to choose between Russia and NATO. Therefore, they advise not to deepen relations with the latter, since it may be harmful for Kazakhstan in the long-term. While others state that if one were to look at the broader picture beyond Russia, but were to include China as well, then strengthening ties with NATO may be a more pragmatic and smarter approach for the Central Asian states, particularly for Kazakhstan. Both views have supporters and opponents, meanwhile both parties do share some views related to NATO activities in Central Asia.

The first aspect that observers agree upon is the positive role of NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP) program, which does not promise future NATO membership to its partners in Central Asia (the Central Asian states are either not interested or not likely to enter the alliance). The scope of this partnership, perceived as NATO's success story in dealing with developments of the post-Cold War period, covers cooperation with partner countries in such fields as defense reform and policy, education and training, military-to-military cooperation and exercises, civil emergency planning and disaster-response. The regional states' primary interest in NATO cooperation was exactly in these spheres with the purpose of improving their own military capabilities. This cooperation, obviously, had a positive impact on security sector reforms in the regional states, particularly in Kazakhstan. Indeed, Kazakhstan advanced its participation in the PfP program through an Individual Partnership Action Plan, which is expected to improve its military forces interoperability with NATO.

Nevertheless, there are particular issues that undermine NATO's diplomatic efforts and attractiveness as a partner even beyond the regional context. One of them is the perceived lack of transparency. There are many analyses pointing to the increase in drug trafficking from Afghanistan despite ISAF's increased military operations. Moreover, there are conspiracy theories about forces in the West promoting this trend and that maintaining control over drugs is the reason for NATO's war in Afghanistan. However, more transparent and open talks, widespread research and publications over the drugs problem and NATO's policies in this regard could help regional states including Russia to eliminate their suspicions over this increasingly dangerous challenge.

Suspicions are doubled by NATO's apparent reserved position in cooperating with other regional security structures, namely the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), who also share similar goals regarding drug trafficking, terrorism, responding to emergency situations, and contributing to stability of Afghanistan. However, NATO's experience thus far should be clear that there is no military or one-way solution to the complex security situation in Afghanistan. Rather soft power policies along with more constructive cooperation with regional actors could be the way to turn NATO's power into a winning strategy.

There is also a common understanding that NATO's vision for Central Asia is limited to the Afghanistan issue. This is understandable, as some NATO members have been at war for almost a decade, which is their most urgent task. However, only viewing Central Asia in the Afghan context prevents NATO from seeing the broader picture. In this broader picture, Central Asia has more significance in the triangles of "Afghanistan-Russia-new threats" in the short-term and the "China-Iran-new threats" context in the long-term. Therefore, Central Asia's strategic significance beyond Afghan issue deserves more attention and value rather than just being a simple supplier of goods or provider of logistics routes to ISAF as described by some experts in the West.

This concern is coupled with the issue of the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan, which will be a major source of anxiety for regional states, though this concern has been temporarily displaced by the unrest in the Middle East and North Africa region. As stated before, there have been mixed feelings about NATO's presence, however, now, feelings are more complicated about ISAF troops leaving this area. NATO along with the US, probably aiming at calming other actors, has kept saying for a while about withdrawal from Afghanistan without giving particular dates or drawing a sound strategy for the post-withdrawal situation in Afghanistan. This has become even greater concern for regional states in Central Asia, thus lack of the vision of the post-ISAF period makes them to feel more vulnerable and pushes them to strengthen ties with Russia and China.

This context leads to valid assumptions that Kazakhstan's relations with NATO will be determined in the context of the NATO + Russia scheme. Moreover, it will remain as one of the major cornerstones in Russia's relations with NATO, though Russia announced her support to the ISAF and even allowed to use her airspace for the Northern Distribution Network. Having its own experience in Afghanistan, the Russian leadership is more interested in quieting the Afghan issue and terminating the flow of Afghan drugs into the country as soon as possible. Notably, the 2008 war with Georgia revealed problems within the Russian military, which demonstrated Russia's limited capabilities if the radical militants were to spread into Central Asia. Paradoxically, the war in Georgia had a controversial impact on Central Asian states, significantly eroding NATO's image as a reliable partner among regional leadership. This sentiment, however, did not prevent Kazakhstan from hosting the third Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council Security Forum in 2009, when representatives of more than 50 countries, including member-states and partner-states, gathered in Astana.

Thus when the new and non-traditional threats, being the linking part of two geopolitical triangles mentioned earlier, are analyzed in the context of recent developments in the region and the world, NATO remains to be an attractive partner.

Meanwhile it must be always remembered that partnership is a two-way road that requires contributions from both sides if it is to be efficiently functioning and mutually beneficial. 

Aigerim Shilibekova is the director of the Center for International and Regional Studies at The L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University in Kazakhstan.

This article was submitted for the atlantic-community.org's competition: "Empowering Women in International Relations." It coincides with the 10th Anniversary of UN resolution 1325 calling for an increased influence of women in all aspects of peace and security. The contest is sponsored by the U.S. Mission to NATO and the NATO Public Diplomacy Division.

You can read more submissions from the competition here.