4 July 2012. PenzaNews. Uzbekistan has decided to suspend its participation in the activities of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and sent a relevant note to the CSTO Secretariat on Thursday, June 28. According to the regulations, every country has the sovereign right to withdraw its membership, however, it is not possible “to suspend the participation in the activities of the organization” unilaterally – only the governing council can take such a decision as a punishment. This was announced by the spokesperson of the CSTO Vladimir Zaynetdinov.

© PenzaNewsBuy the photo

“If a member state wishes to withdraw from the CSTO organization, it must send a note of the relevant decision to the Secretariat six months prior to withdrawal. In this particular case it has not been done yet,” he stressed.

In addition, the spokesperson pointed out that, being a member of the CSTO, Uzbekistan ignored the adoption of major agreements and did not actually interact with the organization through military cooperation – the country refused to participate in staff training, exercises and operational training.

“Uzbekistan has its own special way of thinking about the CSTO collective efforts aimed at stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan. The country prefers solutions on a bilateral basis,” said Vladimir Zaynetdinov and added that the withdrawal of Uzbekistan would not affect the organization, and it would continue to work in the ordinary course.

According to Kazakhstani political scientist, expert in Arab studies and career diplomat, editor of “Exclusive” Rasul Jumaly, Uzbekistan’s decision cannot be called sensational because Tashkent, “changes its foreign policy preferences very often.”

“Uzbekistan left the Collective Security Treaty Organization in 1999 but later became a member of it again. This inconstancy of Tashkent is manifested not only in the Organization of Collective Security Treaty, but also, for example, the SCO and the Organization for Democracy and Economic Development GUAM. This is special nature of the country’s foreign policy,” the expert stated.

From the analyst’s point of view, one of the reasons for this decision was the country’s disappointment in cooperation with the Collective Security Treaty Organization – the organization that, in the opinion of some experts, cannot protect itself or its allies in case of force majeure. According to Rasul Jumaly, Uzbekistan is wondering who it could rely on in case of unforeseen developments following the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan: the country will need special support, “if the Taliban regains power, taking into account its very angry attitude to the regime of Islam Karimov.”

“There is a global change in Uzbekistan external priorities from Russia and the CSTO towards the US, as it was in the late 90s up to the events in Andijan in 2005. Uzbekistan placed stakes on NATO. Dynamic rapprochement between Tashkent and Washington takes place not only in terms of military and political, but also strategic and economic cooperation,” he said.

Moreover, the analyst reminded that the southern route out of Afghanistan is currently closed due to embittered relations of NATO with Pakistan, which means that most of the troops will be moving to the north. In this regard, according to Rasul Jumaly, the issue of NATO military installations in Uzbekistan is brought up.

Research Fellow of the European Council on Foreign Relations Nicu Popescu does not exclude the possibility of establishing such facilities in the Central Asian countries, as “it is important for Americans to have as many logistical ways to withdraw troops and equipment from Afghanistan as possible.”

“It is financially profitable for Uzbekistan and will allow the United States to be less dependent on Pakistan, with whom NATO has very tense relations. Furthermore, it is important for Tashkent that after the withdrawal of troops both America and Russia continue to support the current government of Afghanistan, not allowing the Taliban to regain power,” the expert said.

According to him, Uzbekistan always liked to keep a distance not only from Russia but also from the integration associations in Central Asia, and in this regard its participation in the CSTO (but not the decision to leave) was very non-traditional.

“This is Uzbekistan’s second exit out of the same river and I do not think that it can seriously affect its relationship with other CSTO members. Being part of the organization it had never had good relations neither with Tajikistan nor with Kyrgyzstan, or Kazakhstan. I think the relations will remain at the same level of mistrust,” stated Nicu Popescu and stressed that the withdrawal will hardly complicate or improve the activities of the CSTO.

However, Uwe Halbach, a senior research fellow at German Foundation for “Science and Politics” suggested that the decision of Uzbekistan to suspend its membership could weaken the Organization of the Collective Security Treaty.

“It shows that it is not a very coherent organization and that there are different concepts about the common security mission and peace missions and so on. I think that the capacity of intervention into the regional crisis or local crisis like in Kyrgyzstan in 2010 will be very limited,” he said.

Moreover, the expert reminded that Uzbekistan has very delicate relationships with other countries in the region. In his opinion, Uzbekistan is a very delicate candidate for every regional organization because it has very own perceptions.

“Seven years down the road, relationships between Tashkent and Washington became much closer and it has a lot to do with the situation in Afghanistan and north distribution network where Uzbekistan has a logistic key role,” Uwe Halbach said.

According to the German analyst, Uzbekistan’s decision to suspend its membership of the Collective Security Treaty Organization shows that the country is very much focused on its own national sovereignty and is not willing to cooperate in regional organizations which are perceived by the Uzbek power elite as a limitation of own sovereignty. According to the expert, the Uzbekistan’s concern was that the CSTO could become a source of interventionism.

According to Russian media, amendments regarding establishment of military facilities in the member countries of the CSTO were made to the Charter of the Organization of Collective Security Treaty last year.

“The member States shall adopt a decision on the stationing of groupings of forces in their territories and of military facilities of States which are not members of the Organization after holding urgent consultations (reaching agreement) with the other member States,” says the seventh article of the third chapter of the CSTO Charter.

In this regard, Senior Fellow at the Center for Political Studies of Russia Vadim Kozyulin suggested that following the withdrawal from the CSTO, Uzbekistan may adopt a decision to establish new US military facility in its territory.

“The US intends to significantly reduce its contingent in Afghanistan until the end of 2014, so it is in need of a new ally in the region which could become a reference point and a place to store military equipment, aircraft, and probably drones, which in future might control the region under the guise of fighting terrorism,” the expert stated.

According to him, given the difficult situation, Uzbekistan got certain security guarantees from the United States.

“Otherwise, I will not be surprised if Uzbekistan once again files an application for membership in the CSTO in five years. After all, once this has already happened,” recalled Vadim Kozyulin.

Analyzing possible consequences of the decision, the expert noted that it would cause a certain blow to the image of the organization.

However, it should be noted that it is the position of Uzbekistan that was often the cause of such an image of the CSTO, Tashkent voted against many important agreements and protocols which was tantamount to veto. Often Uzbekistan, in fact, thwarted initiatives, supported by all other members of the organization,” said the analyst and added that under the new conditions the organization will be “light of foot, which means – more mobile.”

Moreover, Senior Fellow at the Center for Political Studies of Russia suggested that in the near future the Collective Security Treaty Organization would acquit itself well in collaborative solutions concerning, for example, cybersecurity.

“The future Afghanistan will pose a threat of extremist ideology expansion. Following the withdrawal of coalition forces from the country, radical Islamists in Central Asia will experience a burst of energy – because democratic values have never been in such bad condition as after the US campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. It promises the CSTO a lot of work to counter terrorism and drug trafficking,” Vadim Kozyulin concluded.

The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is an intergovernmental military alliance that is based on the Collective Security Treaty (CST) signed by Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan on 15 May 1992 in Tashkent.

Azerbaijan, Georgia and Belarus joined the block in 1993.

In 1999, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan suspended their participation in the Collective Security Treaty by refusing to extend the contract. Tashkent became a member of the alliance in August 2006.

In accordance with the Charter of the CSTO, any member country can withdraw from the organization at any time.