INTRODUCTION:
Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has sought to engage the newly independent Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan in three main areas: security, energy, and democracy promotion. Ultimately, an investigation of this effort is important to the Project on National Security Reform (PNSR) because it demonstrates the difficulties involved in interagency policy planning towards developing and unstable regions. The study specifically highlights the importance of balancing policy priorities and properly assessing the needs, fears, and expectations of our foreign partners.

STRATEGY:
Towards the end of the George H. W. Bush Administration and during the early Clinton years, the United States did not have a clear plan for implementing its objectives in Central Asia. The region was not a top priority of U.S. policy planning and U.S. government agencies largely considered Central Asia a strategic backwater. By the mid- to late-1990s though, Washington had identified three enduring objectives—energy, security, and democracy promotion—and would pursue them in that order, with varying degrees of success, until 2001. After 9/11, Central Asia’s strategic importance rose considerably as both a staging ground for operations in Afghanistan and a front line in the greater Global War on Terror. Security had become a chief U.S. priority in 2001. By 2003, however, another shift in Bush Administration policy saw democracy and human rights assume preeminent positions in policy planning, to the detriment of Washington’s other goals.

INTEGRATED ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER:
During the Clinton Administration, U.S. policy was not well integrated. Responsibilities for the Central Asian region were divided between a number of agencies and departments. Various competing views of Central Asia existed and policy largely concentrated on neighboring countries, especially Russia, China, and Iran. This approach continued during the beginning months of the first George W. Bush administration, which focused its foreign policy on great power politics. After September 11, however, the United States became more deeply involved in the region. During the post-9/11 period, planning was largely split between the Departments of State and Defense. The U.S. Congress also complicated the decision making process by pressuring the executive branch to advocate for human rights and democratic reforms in Central Asia.

EVALUATION:
After successfully removing most Soviet-era weapons of mass destruction and related infrastructure from Central Asia, U.S. policy planners in the mid- to late-1990s saw few pressing security threats or great opportunities in the region. American planning thus focused on keeping Central Asia outside of great-power competition. This policy was successful, but created a regional security vacuum that Washington would have to manage when the U.S. presence increased considerably during the Bush Administration. Energy objectives were also partially successful as they achieved gains for US companies investing in Central Asia and agreement on the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Yet, plans stalled for a Trans-Caspian pipeline and the Caspian Pipeline Consortium’s pipeline has succeeded in further linking Central Asia to Russia. Democracy promotion initiatives remained a low priority during this period.

After 9/11, the United States signed base agreements with both Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and established a strong military and political presence in the region. Soon after signing partnership agreements with Uzbekistan, Washington’s relationship with Tashkent began to unravel. Unfulfilled expectations, State Department and congressional insistence on upholding U.S. human rights objectives in the wake of the Karimov government’s May 2005 crackdown at Andijan, combined with mixed messages from the Departments of State and Defense all contributed to a rupture in U.S.-Uzbek relations and the subsequent eviction of U.S. troops from the Karshi-Kanahbad military base.

RESULTS:
U.S.-Central Asian engagement has produced mixed results. Successes in some areas have coexisted with failure or neglect in others. The Clinton Administration achieved most of its nonproliferation goals and many of its energy objectives. Yet, the administration failed to make much progress on political reform issues, and its policies helped promote a regional security vacuum. During the Bush administration, U.S. officials were initially highly successful in securing Central Asian government support for U.S.-backed security initiatives, including backing for the intervention in Afghanistan. Washington’s democracy promotion strategy proved less successful, engendering suspicion and resistance from regional governments.

CONCLUSION:
Under both the Clinton and Bush administrations, various U.S. Government departments and agencies did not fully articulate their goals or resolve inconsistencies among U.S. goals. As a result, U.S. strategies achieved only mixed results in a region that has become of elevated importance to the United States.