 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||
|
||||||||
 |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
worth repeating |
Political scientist Farkhod Tolipov, a Fulbright Scholar at UGA this semester from Uzbekistan, spoke at an International Forum Sept. 13 about changes in Uzbekistan since independence. Some excerpts: “I would say that so far the American presence in central Asia is needed, is expedient. . . . You know, the natural question arises: to what extent this military base or proto-military base in Uzbekistan, in Kyrghyzstan, in other central Asian countries, provides security. Because so far these countries are not self-sufficient in this sense. They don’t have sufficient collective security infrastructure or a security system. They are in need of foreign support. But we should take into account the fact that in the region two great powers have their military bases—Russian Federation and United States. In traditional theory they are geopolitical rivals, competitors and sometimes enemies, and they have military bases in the region which are located very close to each other. Who knows, maybe we are witnessing now a new mode of strategic cooperation. . . . “Immediate withdrawal from central Asia would be a mistake. [The United States] should complete its mission related to Afghanistan. But a permanent installation would be another mistake. . . . After the completion of this campaign there would be no reason to remain in central Asia—otherwise the suspicion from China, Iran and other traditional rivals can only increase. So that’s why sooner or later American forces should withdraw. . . . And the ideal result will be: Central Asia without foreign military presence.” |
|
| —Beth
Roberts |
|