Kyrgyzstan has found itself among 75 countries for which the United States has temporarily suspended the issuance of immigration visas. This news has caused a certain resonance, but it is important to understand that it speaks not only about Washington's immigration policy but also about its attitude towards a country that previously fulfilled significant obligations to the United States.
At a meeting with John Pommereshime, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Central and South Asia, Kyrgyz Ambassador Aibek Moldogaziev tried to emphasize this point. He spoke about the new visa restrictions, including the suspension of immigration visas and a return deposit ranging from $5,000 to $15,000 for B-1/B-2 visas, as well as the potential reduction of business and tourist contacts. These factors are not just statistics: they directly affect the human connections that have historically served as the foundation of Kyrgyz-American relations.
Pommereshime, in turn, responded cautiously, noting that such measures are necessitated by the need to combat illegal migration. Formally, this seems logical, but in practice, the list of countries appears as if it did not take into account the history of cooperation and the reliability of the partner. Kyrgyzstan ended up on a general list of countries that includes states with varying levels of interaction with the United States.
Here, a sense of injustice emerges that is difficult to express in diplomatic language but is understood by anyone familiar with the history of interaction between the two countries.
Since the United States approached Kyrgyzstan in 2001 with a request to host the "Manas" airbase, the country has effectively found itself in a zone of strategic risk. Under pressure from neighbors and in the context of complex domestic politics, Kyrgyzstan agreed to provide its territory for the anti-terrorist coalition. At that time, many in Bishkek and beyond understood the price that would have to be paid for this decision.
The "Manas" airbase was not just an airfield; it was a key point in Operation "Enduring Freedom." It facilitated the movement of cargo, military personnel, and fuel, and it supported refueling operations. The U.S. gained an important logistical artery upon which their mission in Afghanistan depended. Over the course of cooperation, Kyrgyzstan earned the status of a partner but also faced pressure, political fluctuations, and threats of base closure.
And now, two decades later, it seems that Washington has forgotten all of this as easily as it changes regulations. A country that once hosted a strategically important base for the U.S. is now viewed as one of many with which Washington has far fewer points of contact.
Trump undoubtedly relies on his logic: his policy aims to limit migration and reduce costs. He has a particular vision of the world. However, political memory is an important aspect. Kyrgyzstan, which opened its doors to the U.S. in 2001, could have expected an individual approach, an understanding of the context, rather than automatic inclusion in a general list.
Currently, there is a sharp contrast: on one hand, a business forum B5+1 is being prepared, meetings are taking place, and words about partnership are being spoken; on the other hand, barriers for people, businesses, and cultural exchanges are increasing. This creates ambiguity: the rhetoric of friendship exists, but practical steps are going in the opposite direction.
All of this is happening against the backdrop of Kyrgyzstan once again finding itself caught between the political interests of major powers. This is not the first instance, but that is precisely why it is important to remember that for a small country, international decisions are never merely "technical." They always have their consequences – economic, social, and symbolic.
If the U.S. continues to perceive Kyrgyzstan as part of a long list of "at-risk countries," rather than as a former strategic partner, it indicates that Washington's foreign policy towards the region has become less nuanced than before. Bishkek, just like twenty years ago, will once again have to decide whether it will become an object of someone else's policy or will attempt to defend its independence.
