CC BY
13
Most probably it will analyze various scenarios, as much as possible safeguarding neutrality.
Russia behaves self-sufficiently, and players who indirectly take part in the Syrian problem solution and can't decide on the position, have to make decisions and work out possible consequences of their own actions. Not to get into a scrape, the states should effectively respond to challenges finding well-timed and considered answers. There is a wish to believe that pressing into service common sense and foreign policy vision, Baku will demonstrate such strategy, - E. Kasayev concludes.
Author of the abstract - Valentina Schensnovich
LYUBOV SIMUTENKOVA. REGIONAL PRIORITIES OF FOREIGN POLICY OF UZBEKISTAN: BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE // The article was written for publication in the bulletin "Russia and the Moslem World."
Keywords: the republics of Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, the Middle East, he Asia-Pacific region.
Lyubov Simutenkova,
Student, 4th year, Department of Political Sciences Moscow State Linguistic University
More than a quarter of a century has passed since the end of the Soviet Union's existence as a state, however, the consequences of that event are still felt all over the entire post-Soviet area to this day.
Today, the republics of Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan) are not full-fledged actors in the international arena, and the problems facing the region do not attract the attention of the entire world as, for example, those of the Middle East or the Asia-Pacific region.
In this connection experts and journalists are not watching the situation in these Central Asian republics too closely.
In Soviet times Central Asia was regarded the "underbelly" of the country. And it remains such for Russia at present. The region serves as a buffer between Russia and the turbulent eastern world. This is why the study of the problems preventing the integration of the region seems especially important in the context of security of the region and the entire Russian Federation.
Disunity of the Region
The disintegration of the USSR has been followed by a host of difficulties which cannot be overcome to this day. The countries of the Central Asian region have to cope with the problems of disintegration alone, which in turn are followed by challenges to security, political stability, economy, ecology, etc.
The fact that the countries of this region are not interconnected is crucial for understanding the specific features of each of them, in this case it's Uzbekistan. The government of this republic deems it necessary to pursue a policy based exclusively on the national interests of the state, disregarding the specific features and problems of the entire region.
As to the Republic of Uzbekistan, several experts analyzed the reasons why the state cannot place the interests of the region above those of just one state, and why the disunity of the region will hardly be overcome within a short- or middle-tern period. We shall look at the views of some of them - Paul Stronski, Yuri Sarukhanyan, Aleksei Malashenko, Ekaterina Borisova, Vitaly Klaptsov, Rafik Saifullin and Elena Ionova.
Paul Stronski is a senior research associate of the Carnegie Center and studies the relations of Russia with the states of Central Asia and the Transcaucasus. In his article published on the site of the Carnegie Center in Moscow he discusses certain aspects of Uzbekistan's domestic and foreign policy, including political and economic problems, security questions, relations with China, and
problems of transfer of power. The author explains the reasons why it is difficult for Uzbekistan to have good relations with its neighbors. He thinks that Uzbekistan maintains the best relations with Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, however, there is a number of difficulties and contradictions. The greatest number of problems exists between Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.1
The government of Uzbekistan thinks it right to pursue a policy answering the national interests of its country, disregarding the common problems and requirements of the entire region of Central Asia. Such approach prevents Uzbekistan to build good and fruitful relations with the neighboring states and claim the status of a regional power.
Yuri Sarukhanyan, expert in international relations, in his article "Why Central Asia Is Not Ready to Become United"2 notes the fact that today the region is disintegrated, despite numerous attempts to unite it, in a way. One of the reasons, in his view, was the absence of conditions for the foundation of the union. The author cites the history of the European Union where its member-states have united not after formally signing a corresponding treaty, but after the creation of the proper conditions for a real union. The author also points to the presence in the region of several foreign actors (the U.S., Russia, the EU, China, Turkey, Iran, India, Pakistan, Japan) which influenced the situation in the region, where the two biggest regional powers (Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan) rival for leadership.
Aleksei Malashenko, Dr.Sc. (Hist.), professor at the Institute for Oriental Studies and expert of the Carnegie Center, among the reasons preventing the integration of Central Asia names the following ones: the unsolved problem of the demarcation of state borders, water resources problems, preponderance of national interests over regional ones, absence of a base for integration, unfriendly personal relations between the leaders of the regional states, positions of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan on the problem of leadership, security problems (terrorist threat, threat of coups,
"color revolutions," civil wars, drug trafficking), and positions of the foreign actors on the question of regional integration. 3
Aleksei Malashenko gives three possible scenarios according to which the situation in Central Asia may develop.
The first variant presupposes the worsening of the situation in the region right up to the emergence of interstate conflicts.
The second variant is a complete integration of the countries in the region right up to the setting up of a supra-state structure with certain powers.
The third variant, which seems the most probable to the author, envisages tripartite or quadruple cooperation of the states on the most crucial problems (water and border).4
We cannot say that there have been no attempts to create an integrated region. In 1994 the Central Asian Union was set up, which existed to 1998. From 1998 to 2001 there was the Central Asian Economic Community. The Organization called "Central Asian Cooperation" existed from 2001 until 2005. But after that, the Central Asian republics did not try to set up any organizations which could lead the local countries to a new qualitative level of interaction.
The above-mentioned works mentioned enough reasons for "integration failure."
First, the sovereign republics prefer one's own interests to regional ones, which, understandably, do not contribute to integration.
Secondly, the water problem divided five states into two camps.
Thirdly, the problem of border demarcation, in one way or another, prevents the favorable development of mutual relations.
The latter circumstance specially concerns Uzbekistan which borders on all Central Asian republics.
Finally, security problems are very important for all countries of the region, nevertheless, each state is trying to deal with this question independently.
Hence, a conclusion that there are points of contact, however, ambitions and the human factor (that is, personal relations between certain heads of state) prevent to change a conflict foreign policy course into a creative and fruitful one.
It should be borne in mind that there are two actors in the region claiming the role of the regional leader. They are Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. The reasons for gaining this status differ in each state. Kazakhstan possesses the biggest economic potential in the region and is in the most advantageous geographical position - between the European and Asiatic worlds, whereas Uzbekistan wins in the demographic indices and has the biggest army in the Central Asian region. The ambitions of both countries do not allow them to become submitted to one of them, and thus their "confrontation" continues to this day.
The Water Problem
The water problem has already been mentioned as a factor which could have contributed to integration in the region. Indeed, two rivers flow through the territory of the republics, which are vitally important for the normal functioning of the states there. These are the Amudarya and the Syrdarya. These rivers flow from the mountains in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. The policy in hydro-energy and the operation of various hydropower plants has become the stumbling block between the "upper countries" (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) and the "lower countries" (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan).
The water problem gives birth to regional political and economic tension, however, the attempts to resolve this problem run against many other problems (from backward and insufficient technical equipment to a lack of economic and political initiatives on the part of the national states). Contradictions between Uzbekistan and Tajikistan concerning the construction of the Rogunskaya hydropower plant remain unresolved.
The water situation, namely, water distribution of the Amudarya and Syrdarya rivers remains an acute and controversial problem, however, foreign actors (Russia, the United States, China and the European Union) prefer to stay aside and not interfere in these matters.
The monograph by E. Borisova, senior research associate of the Center of Studies of General Problems of the Modern East at the Institute for Oriental Studies RAS, is a fundamental work on the water situation in Central Asia.5 In her view, the main reasons for the dwindling of the water resources in the region is the inefficient system of water conservation and utilization still existing from Soviet times, on the one hand, and on the other, the unified energy system destroyed after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The author also notes that much in solving this problem depends on Uzbekistan, which uses the regional water resources in agriculture irrationally. The demographic situation in the republic does not contribute to a reduction of water consumption and, naturally, to solution of the existing problem.
This subject is also discussed at length in the article of the leading research associate V. Klaptsov at the sector of bio-economics and stable development of the Center of economic investigations of the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies. The author notes that the water flow system in Central Asia is the region-forming factor, and he cites certain statistical indices, namely, the fresh water reserves in the post-Soviet countries, provision of water in the Central Asian countries (2007), average river flow for many years in the Aral Sea basin (2002), etc. Almost all water resources of the Central Asian countries are spent on agriculture. However, the problem lies in the fact that along with demographic growth the area of cultivated lands also increases, which entails spending much more water resources on agriculture. This forms a condition for emerging contradictions between water-forming countries and those situated downstream.
Apart from using water resources for agriculture, much water is spent on power generation. The biggest hydropower
plants of the region are situated on the territories of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, and these two states are mostly interested in using water resources for power production, whereas Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan need water mainly for irrigation of agricultural lands, which is another reason for their differences.
A unified and uniform state with a planned economy existed until 1991, where all actions were coordinated and directed from a center. The Central Asian states have now faced different interests, uncoordinated actions, and inability to solve the problems of the join utilization of water resources after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and they still have it and suffer from it a quarter of a century later.
Uzbekistan's policy towards the countries lying "upstream" was quite uncompromising. There have been cases of Uzbekistan suddenly closing down gas supply to neighboring republics or sealed its borders, explaining it by security reasons.
Regional Security
The sphere of security is one of the most important in Uzbekistan's cooperation with other states of the region. This is due to several reasons.
First, the republics of Central Asia are Muslim states. In the light of the latest events in the Middle East more and more attention is paid to the problem of non-proliferation of extremist and terrorist ideas and prevention of the activities of such groupings on the territory of the region as a whole, and in individual republics.
Secondly, Uzbekistan, just as its regional neighbors, is constantly threatened from the side of Afghanistan. In this sense there are several threats: a possibility of the Taliban breaking through into the territory of Central Asian republics (although this variant seems hardly probable); the activity of the terrorist groupings (Islamic movement of Uzbekistan, ISIS, and others),
drug trafficking from Afghanistan through the Central Asian countries.
Unfortunately, interstate contacts on these problems are not effective enough, each state prefers to deal with them individually, without cooperation with the neighboring countries. Nevertheless, regional cooperation in this sphere still exists through the channels of international and regional organizations, like the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), from which Uzbekistan withdrew in 2012. These associations organize and carry on anti-terrorist training sessions, camps, conferences and seminars, which bring Central Asian republics closer at various levels.
For a more detailed analysis and better understanding of the problem of regional security and the development of cooperation in this sphere we'd recommend you to get acquainted with the view of the Uzbek political analyst R. Saifullin. In his article entitled "New Independent States of Central Asia: Problems of Security, Cooperation and Partnership. View from Uzbekistan."6 He makes an attempt to explain his country's policy in the sphere of security and singles out three basic problems of security for the republic, in particular, and for the entire region: the threat of international terrorism, drug trafficking, and the border with Afghanistan. The author is convinced that the states of Central Asia should tackle the security problems jointly; however, not one of the existing integration bodies (CIS, SCO, CSTO, etc.) can muster enough strength of the republics to tackle effectively the common difficult problems.
New Administration of Uzbekistan
In 2016 state power changed in Uzbekistan after the death of the first head of the republic Islam Karimov. The question of transfer of powers has been ripe for some time, inasmuch as Islam
Karimov had stood at the head of the republic for quite some time, and besides he was rather advanced in years and not too healthy.
In December 2016 Shavkat Mirzieyev became the official President of Uzbekistan. He was considered the successor of the first President and believed to continue Karimov's policy. However, the real situation proved otherwise. While developing relations with the Central Asian states Sh. Mirzieyev follows the concept of an active foreign-policy activity of the republic, according to which its priority direction is to build friendly and mutually beneficial relations with the countries of the entire region.
Elena Ionova, senior research associate of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations RAS, analyzes in her works the tasks facing the second President of Uzbekistan and his team. In the article "Priorities of the New Administration of Uzbekistan" she examines in detail the actions in their domestic policy and certain steps in foreign policy concerning relations with the neighboring countries.7
In Uzbekistan's relations with Kyrgyzstan the main stumbling block is state borders. To date more than half of disputed land between the states have been delimitated.
The most strained relations in the region were those between Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, and the reason was personal dislike of Islam Krimov and Emomali Rahmon. After election of the new President of Uzbekistan relations between the two leaders have improved and the air link between the two republics was resumed. Consultations began between delegations of the two countries on the border delimitation.
However, despite the seemingly positive shifts in relations and relative successes, the author makes a conclusion that the problem of water resources may prevent any improvement of relations.
Summing up, it can be said that at the end of 2016 positive shifts emerged in the development of relations within the region, which has been noted by all doing research in Central Asian
problems. Numerous meetings at various levels are arranged, various documents signed, and problems tackled, which have been frozen for almost a quarter of a century. All this became possible with the change of the leadership of Uzbekistan. It cannot be denied that the further development of regional relations largely depends on the thoughts and feelings of Uzbekistan's higher-ups. Time will show how successful integration will become.
Notes
Paul Stronski. URL.: http://Carnegie.ru/2016/04/04/ru-pub-63206 Yu. Sarukhanyan. Ot platonicheskoi integratsii do razobshcheniya regiona: pochemu Tsentralnaya Aziya ne gotova stat edinoi? [From Platonic Integration to Disunity of the Region: Why Is Central Asia Not Ready to Become United?]. URL.: http://www.centralasia.ru/newsA.php?st= 475473560.
A. Malashenko. Tupiki integratsii v Tsentralnoi Azii. Proekty sotrudnichestva i integratsii dlya Tsentralnoi Azii: sravnitelnyi analiz, vozmozhnosti i perspektivy [Impasse of Integration in Central Asia. Projects of Cooperation and Integration for Central Asia: Comparative Analysis, Possibilities and Prospects]. Bishkek, 2007, pp. 16-19. Ibid., p. 20.
E. Borisova. Vodniye i energeticheskiye resursy "Bolshoi" Tsentralnoi Azii: Defitsit vody i resursy po ego preodoleniyu [Water and Energy Resources of "Greater" Central Asia. Shortage of Water and Resources to Overcome It] Moscow, LENAND. 2015, 236 pp.
R. Saifullin. Noviye nezavisimiye gosudarstva Tsentralnoi Azii: problemy bezopasnosti, vneshnego sotrudnichestva i partnerstva. Vzglyad iz Respubliki Uzbekistan [New Independent States of Central Asia; Problems of Security, Foreign Cooperation and Partnership. View from Republic of Uzbekistan]. URL.: http://www.centralasia.ru/ news2.php?st=l.208324340 E. Ionova. Prioritety novoi administratsii Uzbekistana // Rossiya i noviye gosudarstva Evrazii [Priorities of New Administration of Uzbekistan // Russia and New States of Eurasia] - 2016, No 4, pp. 96-105.
3
6
7
