The comments seem to run along three themes: that the U.S. was outbid; that there was corruption with respect to fuel contracts; and that only an idiot would do research in Fatboy’s or its successor. Let’s take them in reverse order. On any given morning in Fatboy’s you would have encountered the Red Star Industries representative (probably not a bad source considering Red Star handled the fuel contract); the coordinator of philanthropic efforts at the base and the man responsible for those 137 heart surgeries (again, not a bad source if you are thinking of criticizing public relations in general and philanthropic efforts in particular); several employers at the base; and those responsible for oversight of various U.S. funded contracts. The commentator on corruption in the fuel contracts is largely correct, if you consider only the first two years. After the first two years Aalam and Manas were out of the picture and Red Star was in. After the Tulip Revolution the Kyrgyz government felt that the base ought to pay again for the fuel because their former President’s family walked off with much of the money. Not a bad approach but not one likely to succeed. When I buy groceries at the local store, they don’t usually ask me to pay for them again if the clerk raids the cash register after I leave. After Red Star took over, as I said, their books were both transparent and clean. Finally, I would agree that the U.S. was outbid. But outbid how? I would suggest that the U.S. refused to participate in financial arrangements that would lead to diversions of funds from their intended purpose. The Russians, on the other hand, had no such reservations. That is certainly one way that one may be outbid in Central Asia.

I appreciate the debate. It’s a key reason why I like Registan.net. Ladna,

Jeff

Anyone that would even suggest such an approach, unless completely tongue-in-cheek, is not worth listening to.

I am not clear about why having been to Fatboy’s while it was still Fatboy’s gives me a deeper understanding of why Manas is coming to another crisis point.

Of course the US was outbid. You think maybe that hydroelectric dam might come in handy given the power situation in Kyrgyzstan?

In the long term, choosing Russia as a strategic partner rather than the US is entirely logical too. The US is going home sometime in the next decade just as soon as we get worn out in Afghanistan and either declare victory or just give up. Russia and China aren’t going anywhere.

However, Cooley’s assertion that the American government could have gotten cooperation from the Kyrgyz government without basing the agreement on economic terms is absolutely ludicrous. If the Americans had said the Kyrgyz shouldn’t think about financial compensation, but should instead view allowing an American base on their soil as an example of the “Kyrgyz Republic’s commitment to the broader international campaign in Afghanistan”, they would have been quickly laughed out of the country.

Cooley’s belief that giving more of the money directly to the Kyrgyz government would have reduced corruption and patronage in Kyrgyzstan is draw-droppingly naive.

In the IHT piece, Cooley accuses the US of funnelling money to “regime insiders” via official American aid programs (presumably through USAID), but doesn’t offer any evidence to back up this serious accusation of corruption by American aid officials. Also, if the US has been paying off Bakiev’s regime (by favoring payments that don’t go directly to the Kyrgyz government), how can they have been outbid by the Russians giving the money directly to the government? By Cooley’s calculations, this money will be more “transparent” and thus “regime insiders” won’t be able to use it for patronage purposes. In what alternate reality does Cooley live in that he thinks the Kyrgyz government operates in a transparent and accountable way? Of course Bakiev would prefer that foreign money be sent directly to the government with no strings attached as to how it’s spent. He is in need of funds to keep his patronage network functioning. The Russians, bless their siloviki hearts, understand that. The Americans, rather annoyingly, want to direct money toward development programs (that Bakiev can’t control).

The US has been outbid and outmaneuvered by the Russians, but it’s difficult to understand what Russian foreign policy is in Central Asia (other than, “reassert Russian pride and glory”). They want to prevent Uzbekistan from selling natural gas directly to the West, but have entered into agreements to fund hydroelectric projects in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan that the Uzbeks view as a threat to their water supply. Perhaps, the Uzbeks will cozy up to the US now, to gain more leverage with the Russians.