Conference, Symposium, and Panel Reports

Terrorism, Geopolitics, and Multinational Security
Cooperation in Central Asia

On 22-24 February 2006, the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies
(APCSS) held this conference on the complex security environment of
Central Asia as the region continues to struggle with the phenomena of ter-
rorism and religious extremism, poverty and corruption, political instability
and authoritarian governance, as well as great power (China, Russia, and the
United States) suspicion and rivalry. These challenges are not uniquely
Central Asian, but the region seems to be particularly vulnerable to them as
its young nations are undergoing a significant political, social, and economic
transformation. How the region copes with these issues will extend impor-
tant lessons to the world as a whole. 

This forum examined the trilemma posed for Central Asia and the
broader Asia-Pacific region. First, for the war on terror in the region to be
successful, it must evolve into well-implemented stabilization and recon-
struction efforts as well as dramatic improvements in governance and
human rights. Second, no country on its own can alter the situation in
Central Asia, for such an effort requires cooperation between all of the major
powers and stakeholders in the region (India, Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey).
The magnitude of the problem of terrorism, which affects most if not all
countries in the region, should preclude another variation of the Great Game.
Finally, while the number of regional organizations and security forums in
Central Asia has been growing, the low degree of coordination among them
triggers counterproductive rivalries and plays into the hands of extremist
elements. Since terror knows no borders, what happens in Central Asia sig-
nificantly impacts developments elsewhere.

Although the counterterrorist effort in Central Asia has successfully
marginalized the Taliban and al-Qaeda, the localization of the terrorist threat
means that new autonomous extremist cells continue to emerge in Central
Asia. The sources of proliferation of radical Islam can be found in socio-
economic deprivation, widespread corruption, and political authoritarian-



ism. The only efficient way to successfully eliminate the extremist threat in
Central Asia is through a combination of dramatic political, economic, and
social change. As for the struggle’s military component, enhancing Central
Asia’s counterterrorism capacity should be the priority. 

All Central Asian states are experiencing an Islamization of their soci-
eties and political activities. After decades of forced Soviet-style seculariza-
tion, desecularization and a subsequent Islamization are seen by the popu-
lace as a progressive, democratic, and inevitable process. Ruling elites
sense and acknowledge this trend; but instead of channeling it into a broader
democratic process, they are attempting to manipulate and tightly control
the Islamic clergy. Suppression tactics work in the short-term, as evidenced
by the decline of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan’s activities. Much
more problematic, however, is the long-term containment of an organiza-
tion such as the non-violent Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which is also aspiring to create
an Islamic state in Central Asia. Hizb-ut-Tahrir’s growing popularity all over
Central Asia is, in many ways, an expression of popular protest against cor-
rupt governments. 

While there is no way to be certain whether Islamization will become
more balanced or increasingly radical in Central Asia, it is important not to
overreact to the rise of Islam and ignore the role of culture, ethnicity, and
nationalism. The reality of power, assuming that Islamic parties do gain
power in more of the Central Asian states, has the potential to change radi-
cals as they become preoccupied with the socioeconomic issues that pre-
dominate in the actual politics of ruling. Additionally, Islamic radicalism is
less interesting to national majorities, who are concerned with establishing
the state’s identity, than to national minorities, who are drawn to the social
justice platform. Helping and facilitating the progressive and inclusive for-
mation of the region’s nation states seems to be a reliable way of minimiz-
ing the political effects of Islam’s rise.

There was a consensus among the presenters that the great powers’
growing presence in Central Asia should not lead to a new version of the
Great Game. This task remains complicated, however, not only because the
great powers continue to treat each other with suspicion, but also because the
Central Asian states are, at times, willing to manipulate the great powers
against each other. Excessive geopolitics was defined as damaging to long-
term developments in Central Asia. Therefore, the great powers need to
accommodate each other in the region rather than focus on zero-sum tactics. 

The complementarity of the great powers’ role should be emphasized
and better promoted. Russia’s historical ties to the region connect it with the

150 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:3



European tradition and also serve as a conduit for much of the region’s
energy. China’s economic influence contributes to development and mod-
ernization as well as to closer relations with the Asia-Pacific. India offers an
Asian example of combining the democratic tradition, religious freedom,
and economic dynamism. The American presence helps strengthen the sov-
ereignty of those Central Asian republics that remain wary of powerful
neighbors and makes them more visible in the international arena. Its
democratization effort is welcome, but it must proceed incrementally and be
tuned to domestic realities within each country. At the same time, American
support for human rights needs to be more consistent to avoid setbacks, like
in Uzbekistan. In principle, Central Asian states recognize the need for
multinational cooperation but remain somewhat uncomfortable about rapid
movement in that direction. 

Presenters at the conference were Baktybek Abdrisaev (Utah Valley
University), Ehsan Ahrari (Strategic Paradigms, Washington, DC), Rouben
Azizian (APCSS), Sanjay Chaturvedi (Panjab University), Jon Chicky (U.S.
Department of Defense), Elizabeth Van Wie Davis (APCSS), Jim DeHart
(U.S. Department of State), Feng Shaolei (East China Normal University), Fu
Jen-Kun (Ching Yun University), Roger Kangas (Marshall Center, Ger-
many), Alisher Khamidov (The Johns Hopkins University), Fatima Kuke-
yeva (Al-Farabi Kazakh National University), Alexey Malashenko (Car-
negie Moscow Center), Robert T. Moeller (U.S. Central Command), Yury
Morozov (Center for Military-Strategic Studies, Moscow), Askar Nursha
(Kazakhstan Institute of Strategic Studies), Thomas W. Simons, Jr. (Harvard
University), Nadia Usaeva (Radio Free Asia), Shi Ze (China Institute of Inter-
national Studies) Sohail Zaidi (Command & Staff College, Quetta), and Irina
Zvyagelskaya (Center for Strategic and Political Studies, Moscow).

Rouben Azizian and Elizabeth Van Wie Davis
Professors, APCSS
Honolulu, Hawaii

Conference, Symposium, and Panel Reports 151