Iran.

Iran has vital interests in the maintenance of peace and stability within the region, but its international isolation and pariah status prevent direct action in support of its genuine security concerns. Fears of a tide of refugees fleeing southward from civil war, or of revolutionary slogans hitting a chord with Iran's own ethnic minorities, can only be met by economic investment and reliance on proxy allies (e.g., Russia). Iran's strategy is to use Central Asian markets to reconstruct its own war-ravaged and constricted economy, project itself as a redeemer of Islamic values against all non-Shi'ite challengers (especially Saudi Arabia and Turkey), and act as a key player in the game of petro politics in the international arena.

The volatile security environment presents direct military problems for Iran, but Teheran is prohibited from seeking direct military solutions. Almost overnight Iran went from having one superpower neighbor, the Soviet Union, to eight fractious neighbors in Central Asia and the Caucasus. The Soviet Army was replaced by a CIS military organization that exists mostly on paper. Each state formed small national forces from existing Soviet units. Several years passed until treaties re-established a professional border guard system, run by Russia. Civil war in Georgia and Tajikistan and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the Caucasus destablized the region. At the same time Iran's international political isolation prohibits establishing direct military ties or security agreements with her Central Asian neighbors. Going it alone, Iran reorganized its armed forces, modernized its military equipment through foreign arms sales, developed a chemical warfare capability, and initiated an R&D program to produce surface-to-surface missiles capable of reaching throughout Central Asia. Robert Gates, then Director of Central Intelligence, testified to Congress that Iran could have a nuclear capability by the end of the century.20 Yet, Iran cannot use these forces in Central Asia. Any Iranian military move in the region would provoke an immediate response from both the Russian Federation and the United States. Thus, Iran must rely upon others to maintain peace and stability in the region. Russia is the key to her long-term interests, and nothing must jeopardize that relationship.

Iran's cultural and religious influence upon Central Asia will also be limited. Tajikistan's ongoing civil war hinders Teheran's ties with that country, to which it is related by language (Farsi) and ethnicity (Persian), but with which it does not share a border. Plus, any cultural initiative on the part of Iran tends to be interpreted politically.21 Its closest ties are with neighboring Turkmenistan (Turkic and Sunni), but they focus on transit and energy issues. When Iran first recognized the newly independent republics, many feared that Iran would try to export its own revolutionary political philosophy and religious dogma. Perceived threats of Islamic fundamentalism sweeping across Central Asia have proven grossly over-exaggerated, as has talk of Central Asia's adoption of an "Iranian model." After seven decades of a "Soviet model," the Central Asians are reluctant to adopt any ideological pattern for their development; they do not want an Iranian "big brother" any more than they want a new Russian "big brother." Iran offers specific geographical and transportation advantages the Central Asian governments hope to exploit, but they want to rely on their own institutional heritage or that of more successful economic models in the West or Far East.

Barred from military, cultural, or religious persuasion, Iran seeks to increase its regional influence by focusing attention on its main appeal to the Central Asian republics: a land corridor to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. Teheran has started construction on several free-trade zones along its northern border. A railway line from its Persian Gulf port of Bandar Abbas to join the national railway network at Bafq has been completed, as has an extension from Mashhad to Sarakhs, completing the link between Iran and Turkmenistan (and the old Soviet rail system). Additionally, a private-sector Iranian company is planning a 1,100 mile railway from the new port of Chah Bahar direct to Sarakhs.22 Funding and a construction schedule, however, remain unresolved.

Iran also offers Central Asians an alternative means to avoid Russian efforts to force their way into future Central Asian energy projects. In September 1995, Iran and Turkmenistan began discussions on the construction of a $215 million pipeline to connect the gas field at Korpedzhe to Iranian outlets, reconstruction of the Turkmen-Bashi gas refinery, and operation of the Siri refinery. Iran is to provide 80 percent of the financing, and is prepared to buy annually up to eight billion cubic meters of Turkmen gas after the pipeline is in operation.23

The greatest stumbling blocks to these endeavors are political and financial. First, the main players in the oil and natural gas bonanza sweepstakes are American companies, which cannot or will not invest in pipeline schemes that cross Iranian territory. Secondly, Iran will always subordinate its relations with Central Asia to those with Russia. Iran still views Iraq as its greatest regional threat. Teheran will do nothing (in Central Asia or the Caucasus) to alienate Russia as an potential ally in this struggle.24 Moscow supplies Iran with arms and suppressed Baku's interest in reuniting with Iran's Azeri population in return for a nonaggressive policy in Central Asia.25 Finally, the investment funds needed within Central Asia are too great for any one state to provide.

Thus, Iran uses multinational organizations to defuse anti-Iranian antagonism and share the massive burden of investment. Iran supported the Central Asian states' entry into the resurrected ECO, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and the Organization of Caspian Sea Littoral States (also known as the Caspian Sea Cooperation Zone). In the case of the ECO, for example, Iran works with Turkey and Pakistan, rivals for influence within Central Asia, to provide a framework for supporting economic change, to solicit aid and coordinate pooling of investment funds, and to divide up responsibility for the massive effort needed to modernize Central Asia. At its 1992 summit, the ECO decided that Turkey would focus on education, administration and industrial management; Pakistan on transport, communications, banking and services; and Iran on oil and mineral resources.26

As a contiguous state with shared ethnic minorities, Iran has the most to lose if domestic instability should cause the implosion of Central Asia. But, it also has the least ability to shape those events. An international pariah with a weakened economy, any reaction on Iran's part would be met with an immediate American response.

Thus, the current regime has deferred exporting Iran's revolutionary rhetoric or Shi'ite faith, and focused on economic and technical assistance, especially in the field of energy resources. Iran offers Central Asia the most direct route to the sea, although political constraints hamper its exploitation. But Turkmenistan, and perhaps other Central Asian states, may refocus their attention southward to avoid the greater threat of integration from Russia.

Pakistan.

Two themes have dominated Pakistani policy since independence: fear of India (harkening back to three wars, the last in 1971 which cleaved off Bangladesh) and the search for a superpower patron to counter that threat. Today a third theme exists: threatened spillover from the civil wars in Tajikistan and Afghanistan. For the last three decades America served as that patron,27 but this relationship faltered with the fallout from Pakistan's nuclear program and the Pressler Amendment28 (which ended all U.S. economic and military aid to Pakistan) and American attempts to improve relations with India. Moscow's withdrawal from Afghanistan and the breakup of the Soviet Union had already weakened Pakistan's importance to the United States. Thus, Pakistan today must find another patron, form a new multilateral security arrangement, or foster bilateral ties with potential regional allies.

Pakistan has failed to find a new patron or establish new security agreements. China's sale of sensitive nuclear weapons- related equipment to Pakistan last year reflects a shift of traditional power relationships in South Asia, but it does not make China a patron-replacement.29 Islamabad has had similar fortune in finding regional allies. Pakistan can recruit on a basis of pragmatic realpolitik or shared Islamic roots.30 A new China-Pakistan-Iran axis would match ideological affinity, geo-political necessity, and complementary interests.31 China has consistently supported Pakistan militarily, economically, and politically since the 1960s. Iran, also Muslim and co-founder of ECO, has supported Pakistan in its disputes with India, played a crucial role in guaranteeing Islamabad's security after the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war, and sought to exploit Pakistan's recent alienation from the United States. Nevertheless, serious flaws hamper this improbable alliance. Even as the United States and Great Britain are separated by a common tongue, so Pakistan and Iran are separated by a common faith. Saudi Islam and virulently anti-Shi'ite Wahhibism greatly influenced the brand of Islam popularized in Pakistan during the last decade. Iran and Pakistan are on opposite sides of the Afghanistan conflict. Teheran supports the Shi'ites (mainly Hazaras) and Persian speaking groups, while Pakistan favors the Pashtun Sunnis. Iran objects most of all to Pakistan's relationship with Saudi Arabia, seeing it as the military arm of a long-term Saudi policy of expanding its influence in Central Asia. Finally, each nation has its own competing regional ambitions.32 The likelihood for such a tripartite alliance remains slim, but Pakistan has continued military exchanges, arms sales, and high-level visits with China and Iran.33

A second alternative, targeting shared Islamic roots with the Central Asian republics, has also met with little success. Islamabad has no historic ties with Central Asia because Pakistan itself was not formed until 1947. With the sudden appearance of five nominally Islamic neighbors in 1991, Pakistani policymakers initially envisioned a Muslim security belt stretching from Turkey to Pakistan with Central Asia as the "buckle," to provide both "strategic depth"34 and needed allies in her policy struggles over Afghanistan and Kashmir.

It immediately became apparent that Islam would not be an entree to forming a multilateral defense arrangement. The Central Asian states signed the CIS collective security agreement in May 1992. Islamabad also failed to obtain unilateral support from any Central Asian state for its position regarding Kashmir, the litmus test for Pakistan (and India) for potential allies.35 Central Asian rulers are unwilling to involve themselves in the Kashmir dispute in light of their own nationalities and territorial problems and its religious (Islamic) overtones.

Rebuffed, Pakistan shifted toward establishing bilateral (and through the ECO multilateral) economic and cultural ties with the Central Asian states and offering assistance in transnational issues such as drugs and terrorism. Economic ties are a vital asset to boost Pakistan's fragile economy. One analyst has suggested that the region has a potential annual market of $80 billion; even if Pakistan secured only five per cent of that market, it could earn up to four billion dollars per year--about equal to Pakistan's current total annual exports.36 Moreover, the "Islamic card" was not totally abandoned; Pakistan decided not to "push" Islam as a religion, but as a shared cultural identity. Thus, Pakistan has built mosques, sponsored attendees to the World Islamic Conference, funded scholarships abroad, and donated printing presses to publish the Koran.

Pakistan aggressively sought to develop bilateral economic ties. Penetration of Central Asian markets began with high-level visits in November-December 1991. Pakistan offered a $30 million credit to Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan, and proposed joint ventures in cotton, textiles, garments, pharmaceuticals, engineering goods, surgical instruments, telecommunications, and agro-industry.37 Within two months of the Soviet Union's collapse and Central Asian independence (February 1992), Pakistan signed its first agreement--with Kazakhstan--on education, tourism, culture, trade, and science and technology. Pakistan also has offered to provide training and infrastructure support for banking, insurance, and joint stock venture capital.38 In July 1992, Islamabad signed an agreement with Uzbekistan to establish a satellite communications link, construct highways, produce telecommunications equipment, and manufacture railroad rolling stock.39 Pakistan agreed to construct four highways in Afghanistan and one in Uzbekistan to improve its links with Central Asia. A rail link from Chaman (Pakistan)-Herat (Afghanistan)-Kushka (Turkmenistan) has been proposed, but not yet constructed. Pakistan also sought to exploit Central Asian petroleum, natural gas, and hydro-energy to solve its ongoing energy shortages. For example, in April 1992, Tajikistan signed an agreement to provide annually 1000 megawatts of power at a fixed price for 30 years beginning in 1997 in exchange for $500 million in Pakistani aid to complete the Ragun dam.

Pakistan has had mixed success in bringing these bilateral agreements to fruition. They reflect the gap between intent and capability. The greatest obstacle to Pakistan's Central Asian ambitions is lack of direct access to the region; Afghanistan and a small strip of China intervene.40 Air routes between Pakistan and Central Asia (dating from May 1992) are insufficient for major transfer of goods and services. The second obstacle is regional instability. Political disintegration and civil war in Afghanistan41 make construction and transit prohibitive. The civil war in Tajikistan has derailed the hydroenergy agreement, although the concept is sound (albeit expensive) once peace (or at least quiet) returns to Tajikistan. A third obstacle is Pakistan's inadequate domestic communications network. Pakistani (and Central Asian) rail lines currently end at the Afghan border. Internal Pakistani road, rail, and seaports also need major upgrading. The fourth obstacle is financial. Pakistan lacks the resources to fund these investments. Even the credits offered have been largely symbolic in nature. The Central Asian states as well are unable to contribute significantly to these projects.42

Pakistan's hope that Central Asia would provide strategic depth, new Islamic allies, and collective security partners in its struggle with India has been dashed. Geographic constraints and focused efforts by non-Islamic neighbors, especially Russia and China, have stymied her efforts to become a significant influence in Central Asia. But, through bilateral ties and agencies such as the ECO, Pakistan can still provide technical and financial assistance to the Central Asian states' efforts to confront the economic and social issues which threaten their domestic stability.

21. Sajjadpour, p. 210. (Back to text)

22. Colin Barraclough, "Iran Moves to Position Itself as Central Asia's Trade Path," Christian Science Monitor, December 21, 1995, p. 8. (Back to text)

23. "Niyazov, Iranian Oil Minister Discuss Oil Pipeline," Teheran Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran First Program Network, September 5, 1995; and "$215 million oil deal proposed," Moscow ITAR-TASS, September 4, 1995, in Foreign Broadcast Information Service Central Eurasia (henceforth FBIS-SOV)-05-171, September 5, 1995, pp. 80-81. (Back to text)

24. In return, Iran has played a mediatory role in Tajikistan, often acting directly in conjunction with Moscow. For example, Iran's diplomatic efforts led to a second round of talks held in Teheran in June 1994 which produced a three-month ceasefire and POW exchange. Both government and insurgent forces pledged to uphold and respect democratic principles and asked the United Nations Secretary General to expedite the dispatch of peace-keeping forces to the area. (Back to text)

25. Stephen J. Blank, Energy, Economics and Security in Central Asia: Russia and its Rivals, Carlisle Barracks: Strategic Studies Institute, May 1995, p. 11. (Back to text)

26. Dietrich Reetz, "Pakistan and the Central Asia Hinterland Option: The Race for Regional Security and Development," Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. XVII, No. 1, Fall 1993, p. 47. (Back to text)

27. To counter India's perceived military and economic superiority, Pakistan has always sought the patronage of external powers. America extended superpower patronage in the 1950s when John Foster Dulles allied the "northern tier" of Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan against the Soviet Union (although Pakistan really was concerned with Indian military power and intended to use the aid to bolster its position against New Delhi, not Moscow). The United States and Pakistan signed a Mutual Defense Agreement in May 1954 and Pakistan joined the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). Disillusionment with America set in following arms sales to India in the wake of the Sino-Indian War of 1962 and American failure to settle the Kashmir dispute in Pakistan's favor. (Back to text)

28. The 1990 Pressler Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act ended all economic and military aid to Pakistan because Congress was convinced Islamabad had "crossed the red line" and assembled a nuclear bomb. The amendment embargoed delivery of weapons systems like the F-16 and P-3C Orion, shifting the balance of conventional and nuclear weapons to India (which was allowed to continue its nuclear program unhindered). It convinced the Pakistani government that the development of nuclear weapons was the only option for Pakistan to safeguard its sovereignty and eliminated any incentive for New Delhi to resolve their nuclear imbroglio because any solution might have led to the resumption of U.S. aid to Pakistan. Ali Abbas Rizvi, "The Nuclear Bomb and Security of South Asia, Asian Defense, No. 108/94, April 1995, p. 26. The Pressler Amendment did not forbid aid to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), joint military exercises (if no U.S. funds were used to support Pakistani participation), commercial arms sales, or any service fully paid for by the Government of Pakistan with its own national funds. On January 26, 1996, Congress passed the Brown Amendment to the Fiscal Year 1996 Foreign Operations Appropriation Bill, which modified the Pressler Amendment. The Brown Amendment permitted the U.S. government to deliver $368 million of non-embargoed F-16 equipment, exempted transfer of "military equipment, technology, or defense services other than F-16 aircraft," extended counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics assistance, authorized some forms of peacekeeping assistance, facilitated humanitarian and civic assistance projects, and allowed military-to-military contact authorized outside of the International Military Education Training (IMET) program. The embargoed F-16s were to be sold to a third party and the proceeds given back to Pakistan. (Back to text)

29. "China Sent Nuclear Aid to Pakistan," Washington Post, February 7, 1996, p. A1. (Back to text)

30. Kail Ellis, "Pakistan's Foreign Policy: Alternating Policies," in Hafeez Malik, ed., Dilemmas of National Security and Cooperation in India and Pakistan, New York: St. Martins Press, 1993, p. 131. (Back to text)

31. Samina Yasmeen, "Pakistan's Cautious Foreign Policy," Survival," Vol. 36, No. 2, Summer 1994, pp. 127-128. (Back to text)

32. See Shireen T. Hunter, "Southwest Asian Security Compact: Problems and Prospects," in Hafeez Malik, ed., Dilemmas of National Security and Cooperation in India and Pakistan, New York: St. Martins Press, 1993, pp. 258-272. (Back to text)

33. Yasmeen, pp. 127-128. (Back to text)

34. Reetz, p. 36. This "strategic depth" would provide Pakistan access to military supplies over possible Central Asian land routes that were not controlled by the Indian sea or air forces. See also P. Stobdan, "Looking Towards Central Asia," Strategic Analysis, Vol. XVI, No. 8, November 1993, pp. 1111-1114, for an Indian perspective. (Back to text)

35. This is a constant refrain during all visits to Central Asia. For example, during Prime Minister Bhutto's August 1995 visit to Almaty, on the airport tarmac following pro forma welcoming remarks about peace and stability, she then referred to the "grave situation in occupied Kashmir where a valiant struggle for the right of self-determination by Kashmir is unmatched by brutal use of force, ruthless suppression and violation of human rights by Indian occupation forces." Islamabad Radio, "Bhutto makes statement on arrival," Pakistan Overseas Service in English, August 23, 1995, FBIS-SOV-95-193, August 23, 1995, p. 75. (Back to text)

36. Yasmeen, p. 129. (Back to text)

37. Tahir Amin, "Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Central Asian States," in Ali Banuazizi and Myron Weiner, eds., The New Geopolitics of Central Asia, Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1994, p. 221. (Back to text)

38. Yasmeen, p. 129. (Back to text)

39. Amin, p. 222. (Back to text)

40. The shortest route is the Karakoram Highway from Rawalpindi through Chinese Xinjiang to Almaty. There are three railheads on the Pakistan side: one each near Peshwar and Quetta facing Afghanistan and one terminating inside Iranian Baluchistan at Zahidan. Reetz, p. 40. (Back to text)

41. P. Stobdan argues that finding a solution to Afghanistan's problems became Pakistan's first priority when it realized that although "balkanization" of Afghanistan might lead to annexation of the south-eastern Pushtun region, it also could affect Pakistan's own territorial integrity. A peaceful, stable Afghanistan was necessary if Pakistan was to obtain a land route necessary for economic penetration. P. Stobdan, "International Aspects of the Conflict Situation in Central Asia (An Indian Perspective)," Strategic Analysis, Vol. XVI, No. 3, June 1993, pp. 275-276. (Back to text)

42. Amin, p. 225. (Back to text)

Return to Table of Contents

milnet@milnet.com