Introduction
Central Asia is an enigma, both in how it is as a region and how it relates to the world in general, and specifically the USA. The current political division in Central Asia was a creation of the Soviet Union after it took over the region in the 1920s. Seventy years later, when the Soviet Union fell, commentators expected the region to degenerate into revolutions and chaos but it did not. Different commentators have varying opinions about the geopolitical importance of Central Asia to the USA. Central Asia has a predominantly Islamic population strong enough to have endured 70 years of Soviet rule (Snyder, 2002). Being neighbors to Afghanistan caused many commentators to assume that the region would degenerate into fundamentalism but it did not. Russia and China, two political, economic and to some extent military nemesis of the USA and NATO have the advantage of proximity to Central Asia when compare to the USA (Brzezinski, 2016). The impact of this proximity from the perspective of the USA still remains an enigma. Finally, Central Asia’s riches, geographical location, and international significance makes it an important pawn in the often disastrous international relations chess game for global control played by the US government. The enigma that is Central Asia, has created an enigmatic two-way significance of the region in its relationship with the USA, but this significance has been changing since the 1990s when Central Asia became independent and might keep on changing.
America is Inheriting the Region after the Fall of Russia
Some geopolitical schools of thought, which Snyder (2002) belongs, consider the existence of Central Asia region as evidence of the failure of the Russian Federation. America is thus zeroing in on the region as an affront to Russia. Central Asia, also called the Stans is a collection of five countries, with a population of just under seventy million people and was once a part of the Soviet Union. The five countries are Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. In some cases, Afghanistan and Mongolia are considered as part of Central Asia but ethnically they are not. The population of Central Asia is predominantly Persian, although other ethnic groups were brought in by the Russians at the advent of Russian domination in the 1920s and 1930s (Snyder, 2002). The division of Central Asia into five countries was designed in a manner to further the divide and rule concept of colonization. The nature of the division is one of the reasons why commentators expected Central Asia to degenerate into chaos. Central Asia became an independent region after the fall of Russia and has remained as such to date (Snyder, 2002). It would be in the interest of the USA to have influence in the region as an affront to Russia, which was a force to recon with during the Cold War.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
America and Her Allies are Losing Interest In Central Asia
Another school of thought believes that the USA and her allies, more so NATO are losing interest in Central Asia and the relationship between Central Asia and the USA is waning, to the benefit of Russia. Rumer, Sokolsky and Stronski (2016) engender the argument that the interest that the US had in the region has run its course thus America is no longer interested in the region. As per the argument, among the primary grounds for America and NATO being interested in Central Asia was the war against terror in Afghanistan. However, the US and her allies are gradually losing interest in Afghanistan and by extension, Central Asia is losing its appeal to the USA. The USA needed Central Asian bases to launch its attack in Afghanistan and also fighters to prosecute their war against terror. With the war in Afghanistan petering out, so is the interest of the USA within the entire region. Therefore, Rumer, Sokolsky and Stronski (2016) argues that Russia will return to being the dominant power in the region even as America continues to lose interest.
Central Asia is just a Stooge in a Larger Global Conflict
There are those that consider Central Asia as a stooge in a larger global conflict between the powers as reflected in Brzezinski (2016). Brzezinski (2016) draws a picture of an enduring war between major world powers which the USA happens to be an integral part of. It is imperative for the USA and her interest for several parts of the globe to fall under as much US influence as possible to enable the USA to retain its position as a superpower. Central Asia is earmarked as part of these significant regions. The geopolitical significance of Central Asia to the USA, based from the perspective of Brzezinski (2016) has little if anything to do with the region itself. Instead, it has all to do with the ongoing war of global control between the USA and her allies and countries such as Russia and China. It is easy to decipher from Brzezinski (2016) that the US foreign policy is not keen on what happens to Central Asia or her populace as long as America gets in a better place to control a larger segment of the world politically and more importantly, economically. The insensitive and unfortunate analogy employed by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard accurately describes American geopolitics generally and particular in Central Asia. Chess is a game where victory is attained through the manipulation of Kings and Pawns to achieve an intended end. As Brzezinski indicates, America has a global objective whose achievement includes the manipulation of a few Kings and Pawns with Central Asia simply getting caught in the middle. Dividing the world into Lords and Serfs or Pawns and Kings is against the tenets of social justice, a fact that the Brzezinski’s of this world fail to factor in. The article by Smith (2012) also supports the concept held by Brzezinski (2016) in reflecting that American foreign policy is never limited to a specific region or specialized interest but rather from a global perspective. In Smith (2012) , the commentator lay the argument that the US will befriend one region of the world to make up for antagonizing another region in the world. Based on the foregoing, the significance of Central Asia to the USA rises above Central Asia as a region and have more to do with a global strategy. When the interest of the global strategy calls for closer interaction with Central Asia, then the USA will get closer with the region. Unfortunately, the inverse is also true as America is also liable to lose interest in the region when the global strategy so demands.
Central Asia Needs the USA for Economic Support and Human Rights Protection
There is a benign school of thought that considers the American geopolitical interests in Central Asia to be geared toward ensuring that the region prospers economically and in social justice. As would be expected, the US State Department is a member of this school of thought as reflected by Blinken (2016). The argument engenders the mindset that the USA’s intent in Central Asia is informed by a desire to see the region flourish. One of the perspectives of looking at the significance of Central Asia from the USA geopolitically is to operate on the assumption that the US and NATO are a lifeline for Central Asia. After all, Central Asia has been under the thumb of Soviet Russia for seven decades during which any prospects of a proper democracy would have been eliminated. Further, Russia has been exploiting Central Asia for decades leaving the region’s population poor. The political style on Central Asia has its background in the Soviet Era and is, therefore, not strong on human rights. Finally, Blinken (2016) argues that the economic fate of central Asia is closely intertwined with that of the USA thus, the US is obliged to assist Asia to prosper. Based on this approach, America is a big brother and friend of Central Asia who is coming in with aid, advice, and economic partnership to hold a region in need.
The Purely Economic Perspective
Central Asia has massive reserves of real gold, black gold in the form of oil and nuclear gold in the form of Uranium which forms the basis for American geopolitical interest in the region. As indicated above, most expansionists create the impression that it is the region they are expanding to that needs them, but it is the expansionist who stands in need of the targeted region as argued in Coffey (2017) . The USA is a net importer of mineral oil and constantly needs higher amounts of crude oil to import, and at a low price. It is inter alia because of crude oil that the USA endures the regimes of the Middle East. The relationship between the USA and the Middle East is fragile and always stands at the risk of collapse hence, the need for fresh sources of good crude oil and cheap prices. According to Coffey (2017) therefore, America has a vested economic interest within the Central Asian region. Unlike other commentators, Coffey (2017) hold the opinion that the interest that the USA has in Central Asia is increasing, not diminishing since it is based on the need for mineral oil.
The War On Terror Perspective
Nichol (2014) belongs to the school of thought, which holds that the greatest level of collaboration between Central Asian countries and the USA has been centered on the war on terror, creating the argument that the geopolitical significance of Central Asia to the USA is predicated in the modern war on terror. Most Central Asian countries actively collaborated with the USA during the most active stage of the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Some Central Asian countries also actively participated in the Gulf War where the US was targeting the Saddam government ostensibly for supporting terror. Apart from the war against terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, Central Asia itself has a massive potential for becoming a terror hotbed (Nichol, 2014) . Central Asia has a large Muslim population, the majority of whom are very poor making them susceptible to be enticed into radical Islam and terror. Further, Central Asia is scarcely populated in most of its non-urban areas creating the potential for the erection of camps for training terrorist. After the 11 th September, 2001 terror attacks in New York and Washington, the war on terror has informed much of the US foreign relations policies. The effort to fight terror in Afghanistan, combined with the need to keep terror out of Central Asia has been seen as the leading premise for the significance of Central Asia to the USA (Nichol, 2014) .
Discussion: The Literature and Approach That Fits Best Scenario
Smith (2012) and Brzezinski (2016) provide the most suitable literature and approach for understanding the geopolitical significance of Central Asia to the USA. Central Asia, from the perspective of US foreign policy, is not a region per se with people and needs but rather a segment of the global map that represents a cog in the American foreign policy considerations. To begin with, the USA might be on the verge of a crisis with the Middle East as president Trump has just canceled the Iran deal (O'Connor, 2018). The cancellation of a solid deal that was negotiated in good faith by the US government and witnessed by several global powers will create a crisis in the Middle East, including a possible war which will affect the supply of mineral oil. The US needs a new source of mineral oil that can be accessed even when there is a crisis in the Middle East hence, the significance of Central Asia, and its massive mineral oil reserves. At the same time, the economic conflict between USA and China has been escalating contemporaneously with the escalation of a geopolitical conflict with Russia. The USA made the first step towards the commencement of a trade war with China, through the introduction of stiff steel tariffs. Around the same time, the USA got issues sanctions against Russia for allegedly meddling in the 2016 presidential elections. In solidarity with the United Kingdom, the USA also got into a diplomatic spat with Russia which involved the closing of foreign missions and the expulsion of diplomats. As with the first years of the 20 th century, the first years of the 21 st century saw a few powerful nations seeking to influence the world in a kind of competition with one another (Smith, 2012) . For America and China, the competition is global and even encompasses Central Asia. For the US and Russia, the competition is mainly regional and includes Central Asia, the caucuses, and Eastern European countries. Central Asia is, therefore, more of a victim of American interest, than it is an active participant ( Smith, 2012; Brzezinski, 2016)
Conclusion
The enigma that is Central Asia has held on, both in how the region is and also how it relates to the rest of the world. It would have been expected that Central Asia would hate Russia and seek to embrace everything anti-Russian but Russia remains the closest associate of Central Asian countries, much to the consternation of the West. Further, it would have been expected that Central Asia would embrace Muslim fundamentalism since its population has been persecuted for being Muslim (Nichol, 2014) . Instead, Central Asia assisted the USA in the war against the Taliban and cooperated with America for years to fight against terror. The enforced boundaries by Russia during occupation over a period of 70 years was considered a recipe for chaos when the Soviet Union fell yet Central Asia has embraced democracy, has generally stable governments and a passable level of social justice. Finally, Central Asia has the mineral resources to build stable and thriving economies with some countries such as Uzbekistan having a stable economy and the other four countries following suit. The upshot of the foregoing is that the geopolitical significance of Central Asia to the USA is not about what America can do for the region but rather what America stands to gain from the region. Exploitation of minerals including mineral oil, gold, and Uranium tops the list of gains that make Central Asia significant to the USA. Further, the impending global showdown between the US and China, combined with the regional showdown between the US and Russia play a major role in the significance of Central Asia to the USA. The relationship between America and Central Asia has everything to do with America and almost nothing to do with the populace of Central Asia.
References
Blinken, A. J. (2016, June 21). State's Blinken on a vision for Central Asia. Retrieved from https://tm.usembassy.gov/states-blinken-vision-central-asia/
Brzezinski, Z. (2016). The grand chessboard: American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives . New York: Basic Books.
Coffey, L. (2017, October 24). Central Asia should be at the heart of America's 'new silk road' policy. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/central-asia-should-be-at-the-heart-of-americas-new_us_59ee2307e4b036b5fdb9e5ad
Nichol, J. (2014). Central Asia: Regional developments and implications for us interests. Current Politics and Economics of South, Southeastern, and Central Asia , 23 (1). 1- 83
O'Connor, T. (2018, May 08). New strikes hit Syria as Trump exits Iran deal and Israel is put on high alert. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/syria-hit-new-strikes-trump-cancels-iran-deal-israel-calls-high-alert-916115
Rumer, E. B., Sokolsky, R., & Stronski, P. (2016). US Policy Toward Central Asia 3.0 (Vol. 25). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Smith, A. (2012). Obama's new imperialist strategy. Retrieved from https://isreview.org/issue/83/obamas-new-imperialist-strategy
Snyder, J. C. (2002). After Empire : The emerging geopolitics of Central Asia . Honolulu, HI: University Press of the Pacific.
