US to Control Central Asia with Mobile Bases in Caucasus
By Bahtiyar Kucuk
Published: Sunday 06, 2005
zaman.com
Research Director of Caspian Studies Program at Harvard University,
Dr. Brenda Shaffer has claimed that the US wants to control Central
Asia by establishing mobile bases in the Caucasus.
Defining the Caucasus as a crossroads, Shaffer indicated that a
dominant power in the region would not only control Caspian energy
sources but also Afghanistan and the Middle East at the same
time. Speaking to Zaman, Shaffer said the US saw the Caucasus and
Central Asia as a whole. Shaffer said of the region, “The Caucasus is
like the Istanbul Ataturk Airport, a central point. You can go any
direction you want from here. It is like a junction. It is like a gate
opening to Central Asia.”
Shaffer focused on two basic trends in recent US military policy: “The
first is the transition from permanent bases to more mobile and active
bases. The second is transition to small bases in the surrounding
regions just like the ones in Turkey and Southern Caucasus instead of
the big ones in Europe.” Referring as an example to US use of bases
in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkmenistan during the Afghan and Iraqi
wars, Shaffer said, “The air corridor that the US provided with these
small bases is more important than the US settling one or two thousand
military forces in the same region.”
Explaining that any conflict to arise among the big powers in Caucasus
would be due to the geo-strategic importance of the region rather than
its energy sources, Shaffer said: “The energy in the region is not a
target but a tool. Infrastructures such as the pipelines are just
tools in the relations.” Indicating that the US, Russia and even Iran
and Turkey do not have any intentions to obtain the oil in the
Caucasus, Shaffer claimed that formation of energy corridors through
these countries in the region would bring them political benefits.
Saying that Turkey was in a key position for the stability of the
Caucasus, Shaffer emphasizes that Ankara should look at the region
from a ‘broader’ perspective. To illustrate this, Shaffer gives the
following example: “In the Turkish-Armenian border issue, Ankara
evaluates the issue from the frame of its relations with Washington,
Brussels and Armenia. It does not think of how the opening of the
border will affect the conflict or negotiations in the region. Turkey
should evaluate its bilateral relations with the Southern Caucasus in
a more regional context, within the structure of the region.”
Stressing that the US also had wrong policies in Caucasus, Shaffer
mentioned that Washington did not show enough interest in the problems
of Karabagh, South Ossetia and Abhasia. Shaffer added that in the
context of bilateral relations with Russia, the US was more interested
in Georgia. Saying that the attitude of the US had changed when
compared to its attitude two years ago over whether the Caucasus
countries might be a member of NATO, Shaffer concluded that full
membership of these countries was now a part of US regional policy.
Istanbul