CC BY
14
2018.03.008. ELENA ALEKSEENKOVA. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF "5+1" FORMATS, CREATED IN CENTRAL ASIA (WITH THE U.S., KOREA, JAPAN AND THE EU PARTICIPATION // "Mezhdunarodnaya Analitika," IMIMGIMO University of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 2017, № 1 (19), P. 29-41.
Keywords: Central Asia, multilateral cooperation, "5 + 1" format, regional development, the U.S., Japan, South Korea, the EU, EAEU, conjugation, SREB.
Elena Alekseenkova,
PhD(Politics), RIAC Program Manager, Research Associate, Centre for Global Problems Studies, MGIMO University
The publication is an analysis of the experience of interaction between the countries of the Central Asian region, as with the United States, Russia, China, the European Union, South Korea, Japan, and with other states over a 25-year time period after the collapse of the USSR. The author of the article notes that a number of the above states are trying to develop multilateral formats of cooperation in Central Asia, designated by the formula "5 + 1," in addition to developing bilateral relations with each of the countries of the region. The author notes that the formats differ according to the declared goals, content, mechanisms of cooperation, and allow realization of the various interests of the participating countries. The author analyzes these formats in order to identify the key interests of the participants and determine the vectors for the future development of the relations of the above-mentioned states with the countries of the region, considering this necessary for the most effective planning of building relations between Russia and the states of Central Asia.
The author notes that the Central Asian region with its large reserves of natural resources, a serious demographic potential, and transit opportunities in the center of Eurasia is extremely attractive for external actors, seeking additional opportunities for the
development of their economies. The attractiveness is combined with the weakness of political institutions, high conflict potential, poorly diversified and high-risk economy, as well as a serious set of external and internal security challenges, such as proximity to the sources of instability in Afghanistan and the Middle East with extremely low security of borders, problems of socio-economic stability, threats of growth of religious extremism, ethnic conflicts.
The author tried to characterize the formats of cooperation with the countries of the region, such as "5 + 1," to highlight their common and distinctive features, to outline their perspectives and limitations in the framework of this work.
The first meeting between the U.S. and 5 states of the Central Asian region in the "5 + 1" format was held in 2015 during the visit of the U.S. Secretary of State. The adopted documents underscored the commitment of the parties to the principles of sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and declared the desire to develop cooperation in many areas: in regional trade, transport, development of transit potential, energy, improving the business climate and stimulating investment, creating a sustainable environment, combating change climate, development of energy-efficient technologies. The author notes that cooperation in such important areas as: overcoming terrorism, traffic in weapons and drugs, supporting the development of Afghanistan and its recognition as a factor affecting stability in the region, the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia and humanitarian cooperation were at the bottom of the list.
The author of the article writes that although there are no direct economic interests for the U.S. in Central Asia, falling into the status of an outsider clearly contradicts the constant desire of the U.S. to "diversify" the relations of the states of the region with the outside world and prevent the growing role of China and Russia in the region. The creation of the "5 + 1" format is intended to show the five states that not only Russia and China can help in solving their regional problems, but the U.S. can also, without
pursuing any specific interests at this stage, except to promote the development of the region.
The absence of any concrete initiatives and programs in the field of regional security by the U.S. confirmed that Washington was not ready to invest significantly in solving the problems of the region. The new administration of Donald Trump has not yet formulated a specific agenda for the Central Asian region. Involvement in the affairs of Central Asia does not fit into the concept of "Make America great again" and looks like the dispersion of resources in the face of the need to address much more important internal and external tasks according to the logic of the current discourse of the U.S. administration.
The author notes the absence of an emphasis on the problems of observing human rights and the essence of the political regimes of the Central Asian states in the speeches of Donald Trump and the representatives of the American administration. Simultaneously, the administration of Donald Trump is quite serious about the fight against terrorism and maintains an active position on these issues in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq.
The author believes that the new US administration will further develop the "5 + 1" format. Two main opportunities will be used: building economic contacts with the countries of the region and thus exercising influence on the political situation within them, as well as developing cooperation in the fight against radicalism and extremism. It is also necessary to take into account the donor activity of the U.S. in the region and significant influence of USAID on civil society and the social environment in some countries of the region. The author believes that this U.S. activity in the region will be supported regardless of the development of the "5 + 1" format.
Referring to the Directorate General for External Policies report, the author writes that the EU is the actor with the least influence in Central Asia for today. The region is not among the geopolitical priorities of the EU. So, the EU prefers to focus on
long-term strategies, rather than short-term strategies and results. The EU recognizes that it cannot and should not compete with Russia and China in the region, and calls for a focus on specific economic projects and cooperation in the security field where it can achieve concrete results. The EU should focus on education, continue to insist on improving the human rights situation and strengthen political and financial support for civil society.
The author notes that the region is becoming increasingly unstable, and the previously projected reorientation of the resources of the region (primarily gas) has not yet been carried out. Regional leaders believe trade with European states threatens their well-being, as well as democratic tendencies,. Corruption hampers economic development and "dilutes" a significant part of international economic assistance to the region, the human rights situation is not changing for the better.
The security problem could not become the basis for the EU cooperation with the countries of the region, although it is one of the most acute for the region and the EU is seriously concerned about the problem of terrorism and participation of citizens of the Central Asian states in military operations on the side of ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
In general, in recent years, the EU has intended to build relations with the states of the region rather on a bilateral rather than a multilateral basis. Therefore, there is no need to talk about the existence of the "5 + 1" format in relation to the EU and Central Asia in fact.
At present, there is a significant transformation of the European approach. Despite the fact that the EU is currently more focused on domestic challenges, Brussels is gradually developing its own strategy for the Eurasian region.
The author believes that the EU and other key powers of the continent should seriously consider creating a common security zone for Europe and Asia, and ensuring this security is possible only through the development of the states of the region and the
formation of a common economic "connectivity" of the Eurasian space.
The emergence of the Chinese "One Belt - One Way" initiative in this space, which involves the integrated development of the transport and infrastructural connectivity of the Eurasian region, does not reduce the European concern for the future of the region. Central Asia and South Asia found themselves at the center of the Chinese project for understandable geographical reasons.
The EU insists on the need for multilateral formats to discuss the initiative "Economic Belt of the Silk Road," on transparency and publicity, the need for the project to meet the goals of sustainable development of the United Nations, on the prospects for interaction of all stakeholders on the platforms of the OSCE, the SCO, CICA, and the need for multilateral coordination of all key regional donors and financial structures.
Specific proposals in the field of education, professional development and vocational training have not yet been announced by the Chinese side. It is possible that China is building infrastructure through Chinese labor and Chinese money, the local government benefits from using this infrastructure, but nothing changes for the local population. There is a danger of forming strong economic dependence for the states of the region from China, which can result in excessive debts for the Central Asian economies, and will entail a political orientation toward China.
The author notes that there is an understanding in the EU that it is impossible to resist the implementation of China's initiatives, and the EU is facing the task of "embedding" in the current situation in order to try to influence its development from within. The EU will try to create the most institutionalized and multilateral format for the implementation of the SREB initiative in order to reduce potential risks and maximize the benefits for enhancing the EU engagement with the Central Asian countries, which are the key link of transport projects on the way from China to the EU. The author believes that the joint work of European funds, expert structures and international organizations with the
expert community of Central Asian countries will be one of the formats of the interaction, and it is also possible to create bilateral and multilateral platforms for discussing China's initiative and projects.
Cooperation with the countries of the region to prevent the spread of radicalism and extremism can become another basis for the future EU Eurasian strategy. The EU is already quite seriously involved in the study of risks of radicalization in Central Asia. It is very likely that the EU - just like Russia - can face the most serious challenges to its own security in the near future, coming not only from the Middle East, but also from the Central Asian region.
The author believes that the dialogue with Japan is in the most elaborate and active phase among all the "5 + 1" formats operating in Central Asia. Japan provides official development assistance to countries in the region; The work is also carried out with international structures on specific areas of cooperation, such as UNDP and UNODC.
Japan (together with the EU) participates in the Meeting on Border Management, regularly participates in the Central Asian Initiative Group on Border Security (CABSI) Conferences, and conducts internships at the UNAFEI Institute for Asia and the Far East on crime prevention and combating offenders. Japan supports the Program for Applying Demand Reduction Measures for Central Asian Countries (FAST program), etc.
The main course of practical cooperation was identified for the next 10 years of the Dialogue development - assistance to the development of the agricultural sector of the economies of the countries of Central Asia based on the application of Japan's technologies and experience in the agricultural sphere. In addition, the fight against drug trafficking and control of the state borders of the region in the aspect of sustainable development - prevention of natural disasters, as well as the status of women - were especially noted.
The Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the five states expressed their gratitude to Japan for providing the frontier authorities with
inspection equipment and the implementation of the project on the creation of border cooperation offices. Five Japanese corporations have agreed with Turkmengaz to participate in the construction of the Galkynysh gas field, from where the TAPI gas pipeline will begin (in this project, Japan will invest $10 billion). Japan also invests in infrastructure - the modernization of Tashkent CHP, Manas airport, the construction of a nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan, and in production - Mitsubishi plans to build a plant for the production of ammonia and urea in Navoi, and Toyota's assembly production will be in Kazakhstan. As for Tajikistan, Japan is mainly involved in humanitarian projects so far. Japan's main interest is in the oil and gas sector, due to turbulence in the Middle East. Japan, like Korea, is also interested in uranium. Experts say that Japan is ready to participate not only in social and economic projects in the region, but also to export technologies and develop the financial sector.
Unlike the U.S., Japan does not link its projects and programs in the region to any political conditions, but at the same time it has great financial resources, which makes it a more attractive partner for the countries of the region, especially in the face of a severe economic crisis. In addition, Japan can hardly be suspected that geopolitical considerations are the basis of its policy in Central Asia. It is expected that Japan's economic influence will only increase in the region in the coming years.
"Republic of Korea - Central Asia" the cooperation forum has existed since 2007. The conditions were created within the framework of this format for multilateral and bilateral discussion of cooperation in various fields of political, socio-economic and cultural interaction: in the field of energy and natural resources, infrastructure, IT, agriculture, science and technology, medicine and health, finance, light industry, education, etc.
South Korea can become a worthy example for the Central Asian states as a kind of "model of development."
South Korea is one of the key economic partners of the countries of Central Asia investing in strategic sectors, such as
uranium mining, oil, gas and other raw materials production, transport and infrastructure. The main economic interest that is behind the Korean interest in Central Asia is access to resources and the weakening of dependence on their supplies from the Middle East.
Korea is dependent on energy imports by 97%. The growing dependence on nuclear energy makes Korea dependent on uranium supplies, which explains the great interest in the industry and its investment in uranium mining. The Central Asian states, in turn, are interested in these investments and technological development, which can be facilitated by cooperation with Korea.
In general, the cooperation of Korea and the states of Central Asia is developing in several formats. However, basically this cooperation concentrates around mutual economic interests and is fueled by the presence of historical and cultural ties.
The author notes that rich natural resources, great transit potential, the presence of serious security challenges, multi-vector foreign policy make the Central Asian region an object of interest for many external actors. The existing formats of "5 + 1" cooperation differ from each other both in the form of the institutional organization and in their content, as well as in the degree of efficiency and satisfaction of the participants with the results. Nevertheless, all external actors outlined above intend to continue and develop their presence in the region.
Russia and China are not trying to create such formats of interactions as "5 + 1," unlike all the external actors outlined above. Instead, Russia and some of the states of the region (Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan) are integrated into the Eurasian Economic Union. China prefers to build relations with the countries of the region at the bilateral level, offering large-scale investments, large infrastructure and transport projects to the Central Asian states that can enable the region to realize its transit potential and participate in international trade routes.
Obviously, cooperation within the framework of interface with the countries of the region will develop both at the
multilateral and bilateral levels. The main problem of cooperation in the triangle Russia - Central Asia - China (or EAEU-SREB) is still a low degree of integration and cooperation at the level of small and medium-sized businesses, as well as at the level of civil society.
Not all Central Asian countries are members of EAEU and can participate in projects of the People's Republic of China under the auspices of EAEU. Russia should formulate its own strategic vision of relations with the states of the region in these conditions, filling it with a positive agenda of practical cooperation at the level of small and medium-sized businesses, as well as civil society.
The author believes that the lack of competencies and the insufficient quality of human capital for the implementation of economic leap are the key problems of the Central Asian states at the present time. The competitiveness of the goods and labor of the Central Asian countries in the single EAEU market, as well as the opportunity to provide employment and benefit in the future from the infrastructure, built by China, depend on the ability of the states of the region to train qualified personnel with the required level of competence.
Obviously, in the foreseeable future, China will become the main economic partner of the region, and Russia will be the predominant guarantor of regional security, using the multilateral mechanisms of the OSCE and the SCO. Other external actors will be forced to take this reality into account, building their relations with the countries of the region. However, it is important for Russia to realize that most countries in the region pursue a multi-vector foreign policy and will not miss the opportunity to develop relations with those states that can provide additional development opportunities for the economies of the region.
Author of the abstract - Natalia Ginesina
