CC BY
30
E. Ionova,
Ph. D. (Hist.), Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences
STRATEGIC ALLIANCE OF KAZAKHSTAN AND UZBEKISTAN IN GEOPOLITICS OF CENTRAL ASIA
The political picture of Central Asia is undergoing major changes, which is quite important for the future role of the main geopolitical forces - the United States, European Union, China and Russia - in the region. Along with the change of the external conditions connected with the withdrawal of the forces of the international coalition from Afghanistan, the alignment of forces in Central Asia is largely determined by the processes going on in the region. Thus, the exacerbation of contradictions between the Central Asian republics on the problem of using the water resources of the trans-border rivers was manifested in the confrontation between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, on the one hand, and Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, on the other. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan situated in the lower reaches of the Syrdarya and Amudarya are deeply concerned over the plans of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to build big hydropower complexes -Kambaratin and Rogun power plants.
Despite the existing treaty of eternal friendship between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, relations between them have not been serene for quite a long time. Uzbekistan was concerned with the growing economic influence of Kazakhstan in the region. Besides, both countries have different foreign-policy orientations. Kazakhstan has been actively cooperating with Russia in all integration associations in the post-Soviet area. As to Uzbekistan, while keeping membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (which can be explained by its
close economic ties with China, one of its main investors), it withdrew from the EurAsEc and then from CSTO, and tries to avoid participation in military-political undertakings within the SCO itself. Simultaneously, Uzbekistan is developing cooperation with the United States and European countries in the military-strategic sphere.
Nevertheless, as shown by the results of President N. Nazarbayev's visit to Tashkent in June, 2012, despite all differences, these two oldest leaders of Central Asian countries, whose career had begun in Soviet time, were ready to join efforts in the spheres of their common interest. Protection of the water resources has become the initial point of their present strategic rapprochement. This process began with a visit of Uzbekistan's President I. Karimov to Kazakhstan in September 2012, which was a sort of an answer to the Russian government's intention to render financial assistance to Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in building hydropower plants.
The signing of a treaty on strategic partnership between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in June, 2012, as well as a package of bilateral agreements in the customs, law-enforcement and cultural spheres was a logical continuation of this process. During the negotiations between the two leaders it was emphasized that there were no insurmountable contradictions between the two countries. Both sides declared their readiness for the joint elaboration of a policy in the sphere of regional security, and also in the energy, transport-logistics, food products, and other spheres.
It should be noted that the events in the Middle East have shown the leaders of Central Asian countries a possible scenario of developments. In the view of the director of international programs at the Institute of National Strategy of Russia Yu. Solozobov, "there are rather clearly-pronounced attempts to turn the 'Arab spring' into a 'Turkic spring.' Strategic rapprochement between Kazakhstan and
Uzbekistan can be regarded as an attempt to forestall political turbulence in the region."
In the course of the meeting of the two leaders it was emphasized that the drawing of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan closer together was aimed at lowering the level of participation of extra-regional players in solving problems in Central Asia. In I. Karimov's worlds, "Kazakhstan's potential is very high, and if Uzbekistan's potential is added to it, our countries will have stronger positions which other states will have to reckon with. I think this is one of the main ideas which was a motive for signing this treaty."
Experts assessed this statement as a message to Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, as well as to Moscow, concerning their plans to build the above-mentioned hydropower plants. The position of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan was clearly expressed by A. Knyazev, expert on Central Asian affairs. In his words, "the rhetoric of Kyrgyzstan's President Atambayev and the chorus of Kyrgyz national-patriots on the hydro-energy subject will force the leadership of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan think about opposition to such projects, or about how to make Moscow, which is financing this venture, heed their views."
In essence, the main result of the meeting of the presidents of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan was that they officially declared that they have a special status of regional powers responsible for the security and development of Central Asia. In actual fact, this may lead to a split of the region, its division into blocs, and exacerbation of the situation in Central Asia, difficult as it is.
N. Nazarbayev called on his neighbors - Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan - before building the Kambaratin and Rogun hydropower plants to carry out a thorough survey and persuade people living in the lower reaches of the Amudarya and Syrdarya that they would always have enough water and electricity. Uzbekistan is especially worried by
Kyrgyzstan's and Tajikistan's plans to develop their hydropower industries, because it regards them as a threat to its irrigation system necessary for one of the key branches of its economy - cotton growing. The republic spends more than 90 percent of its entire water intake in the Amudarya basin on cotton growing.
Uzbekistan has signed international conventions (namely, the Helsinki Convention of the UN European Economic Commission on protection and use of transborder water runoffs and international lakes of 1992, and the UN New York Convention on non-shipping types of the use of international water runoffs of 1997), which declare equality in the development of common natural wealth, mutual rational use of transborder water runoffs, and due attention of the countries situated in the upper reaches of rivers to the interests and requirements for water by the countries situated in the lower reaches of rivers, and also solution of all disputed issues through dialogue.
Kazakhstan tends to orient itself to the generally accepted international principles of managing trans-border water resources, but not to the practice in this sphere existing in the region. For one, experts of the Kyrgyz analytical center "Prudent Solutions" believe that the national legislation of Kazakhstan on using water resources will, most probably, be reoriented to European standards, which presuppose a revision of regional documents in this sphere. Moreover, the center emphasizes that the exclusively subjective view of Central Asian countries on this problem as well as their unwillingness to agree to a compromise show that in the future, too, the Central Asian countries will need a supranational arbiter whose decisions will be heard and obeyed by all countries of the region. In their view, the aggravation of "water contradictions" in Central Asia is part of the course mapped out in a report compiled by the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March 2012, which presupposed turning water into a "political
instrument of pressure" and the U.S. readiness to come out as a third force called for "strengthening democratic principles" in order to resolve disputes over water resources, including those in Central Asia.
Thus, the water problem in Central Asia may serve as an example of turning regional economic interests into a factor of violation of the political balance, which has taken shape, and important political shifts. In the conditions of the exacerbation of the struggle for influence in Central Asia between Russia and the United States, the alignment of political forces in the region will largely depend on foreign-policy orientation of the Kazakhstan - Uzbekistan alliance. Evidently, the two strongest Central Asian republics have many common interests, apart from hydro-energy, the main one being the protection of national and regional security. They are ready to cooperate in this sphere with both Washington and Moscow. However, it should be borne in mind that more active behavior of the West in the region is conditioned not only by short-term tasks connected with the withdrawal of the NATO forces from Afghanistan, but also with long-term interests reflected in Washington's strategy called "New Silk Route."
This strategy presupposes joining the countries of former Soviet Central Asia to the sphere of influence of the United States and reorienting their economic ties to adjacent countries which are already under the U.S. aegis. The actions of the United States aimed at the implementation of its short-term tasks do not cause any objections on the part of Russia, all the more so, the countries of the region. In recent months the Central Asian republics have rapidly ratified agreements on granting transit routes for the withdrawal of military personnel, hardware and equipment from Afghanistan, according to which they are to receive about $400 million.
However, consolidation of the U.S. positions in the region on a long-term basis contradicts Russian national interests, and also those of
the Central Asian republics themselves, which have many economic connections with the Russian Federation. Meanwhile, the policy of the United States toward Central Asian countries is distinguished by thorough and delicate work with regional leaders, and special methods for dealing with each country. Indeed, such countries as Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, which have a common border with Afghanistan and are greatly worried over the growing terrorist threat after the withdrawal of the U.S. forces from there, are more interested in American assistance. This is confirmed by the developments taking place in Afghanistan where terrorist and extremist groupings have intensified their activity near the border with these countries.
Washington's readiness to take upon itself responsibility for the protection of security of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan can become a basis for the long-term consolidation of the U.S. positions there. According to official sources, at a meeting of a U.S. government delegation with the heads of the military departments of Tajikistan in Dushanbe in March 2013, the American side "took into consideration the proposals of the Tajik side and expressed readiness to render assistance in combating possible threats." On June 3, a regional office of NATO was opened in the capital of Uzbekistan - Tashkent. It will be in charge of greater interaction with all NATO partners in Central Asia -Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
The level of Uzbekistan's cooperation with NATO is steadily rising: the republic has received guarantees of supplying it with the latest NATO weapons, and its army has already switched on to NATO standards. Combined with Uzbekistan's withdrawal from CSTO and its unwillingness to participate in military-political undertakings within the SCO framework, this is a sign that the republic is becoming an outpost of the United States and its allies in Central Asia.
In the view of the Kyrgyz political analyst M. Sariyev, "this is a typical example of the 'soft force' politics. Step by step NATO is worming its way into the infrastructure of Central Asian countries. This is a slow-going, not too noticeable, but steady process. Take, for instance, the implementation of the 'Partnership in the name of peace' program. NATO has trained practically all high-ranking officers in Central Asian countries, who now represent a strong pro-western lobby in all our countries. At present, a new stage of NATO penetration in Central Asia and transformation of its military infrastructure has begun."
A number of Washington's economic projects aimed at weakening the economic ties of the Central Asian region with the Russian Federation have been planned for a long-tern period. Among them is the creation of new transport corridors bypassing Russia. A case in point is the construction of a railway line in Central Asia which would connect Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan with Afghanistan. This will create "a new railway corridor for Central Asian countries free from Russian influence which will give them access to the world market, which has never existed before." This line will be the alternative to the Russia - Kazakhstan - Kyrgyzstan - Tajikistan line, the construction of which was decided at the latest CSTO summit.
At present Afghanistan has two short railway lines connecting it with Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The first is 10-kilometer long and connects Serkhetabad in Turkmenistan with Turgundi in Afghanistan, which has been modernized by the former and after which its traffic capacity has doubled. At present, plans are under consideration to build another railway line connecting Turkmenistan with Afghanistan.
The 15-kilometer-long railway line from Termez in Uzbekistan, crossing the Amudarya River, to Hairaton in Afghanistan was prolonged at the expense of Uzbekistan's budget by 75 kilometers to
Mazari-Sharif. It is planned to lengthen this route by another 230 kilometers to the town of Andhoi in the west of Afghanistan. A new railway line should also be laid out from Tajikistan to Afghanistan.
As a result there will be a new transport corridor from Central Asia, which will be 1,100 kilometers long, pass from the border with Tajikistan to the border with Iran and have branch lines on the border with Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.
At present Kazakhstan becomes an object of a purposeful policy of the United States and its allies. Washington would like to see it, along with Uzbekistan, among the agents of its influence in Central Asia. All the more so since Kazakhstan is not only a developing country, but a locomotive of the economic development of the entire Central Asian region. For its part, Kazakhstan has also strengthened the western vector of its foreign policy. According to the mass media, meetings between Kazakhstan and U.S. officials at various levels were held last summer aimed at drawing Washington in Kazakh domestic political matters.
A notable event in early July this year was a visit of the Minister of foreign affairs of Kazakhstan E. Idrisov to the United States during which he had talks with several key figures of the American military-political establishment. Apart from that, he made a speech at a round-table discussion arranged by the U.S. Atlantic Council on the subject of "the present state and priorities of Kazakhstan's foreign policy," in which representatives of the White House administration, congressmen, leaders of analytical centers, including such figures as Z. Brzezinski and J. Jones, took part.
The range of bilateral cooperation between the United States and Kazakhstan is quite wide. However, during Idrisov's visit talks were centered on the military-political sphere, in particular, the forthcoming
broad-range exercises within the framework of the NATO program "Partnership in the name of peace," as well as economic problems. For one, the American side, emphasizing extensive relations between the two countries noted Kazakhstan's contribution to major international processes which reflect principal interests of the United States in this region: the antiterrorist activity in Afghanistan and the granting of territory for the withdrawal of the NATO forces, the Iranian nuclear problem, and the policy of non-proliferation of nuclear weapon.
For his part, the Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan emphasized that Kazakhstan is a reliable regional partner of the United States in stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan. E. Idrisov noted that Kazakhstan had rendered help in the development of the Northern distribution network, supported the "New Silk Route" initiative, successfully arranged the ministerial conference of the Istanbul process, rendered humanitarian and technical assistance to Afghanistan, and helps logistically the U.S. efforts in transit to Afghanistan and back. It should be added that Kazakhstan, just as other Central Asian republics supported the resolution on Syria put forward by the United States and its allies, granting them carte blanche for regulating the internal conflict which was turned down by Russia and eleven other countries.
In the words of the head of Kazakhstan's Foreign Ministry, relations between his country and the United States are living through a new development stage and have reached a high level, which is shown by the institutionalization of Kazakh-American ties. In this case we mean the activity of three bilateral commissions - on strategic partnership, in the sphere of energy, and the recently created commission on scientific and technical cooperation. During the visit of the Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan there was another meeting of the bilateral commission on strategic partnership at which the work of the defense departments of the two countries was discussed within
the framework of the five-year plan of cooperation for the years 20132017. A joint communiqué was issued on the strengthening of strategic partnership.
In the economic sphere the United States supported the idea of Kazakhstan joining the World Trade Organization and promised to render help in diversifying the Kazakh economy. Apart from that, Kazakhstan's Foreign Minister asked American legislators to lift the Jackson - Vanik amendment, which hampers the development of trade relations between the two countries. It should be borne in mind that the United States is important to Kazakhstan as a sales market for the latter's uranium products.
Last summer Britain became a strategic partner of Kazakhstan. A corresponding agreement was signed by President Nursultan Nazarbayev and the British Premier David Cameron, who visited Central Asia for the first time. Britain is one of the major trade and economic partners of Kazakhstan and holds third place after the United States and the Netherlands in the volume of direct investments ($12 billion). The British Premier was accompanied by thirty business delegations, and during his visit contracts were signed worth about $1 billion.
Evidently, the Russian Federation can oppose the strengthening influence of the West in Central Asia in several directions. First, by stepping up efforts to protect collective security within the framework of the multilateral international organizations - CSTO and SCO; secondly, increased interaction with Central Asian countries in preventing terrorist threats on a bilateral basis; thirdly, the strengthening of economic cooperation with the countries of the region, including granting financial aid to the countries which have demonstrated interest in strengthening relations with Russia.
Meanwhile, Moscow has faced a difficult choice in the question of supporting the hydropower projects of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, which has actually become the problem of choosing the main allies of the Russian Federation in Central Asia. Certain experts tend to see in the rapprochement of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan the beginning of the creation of a tripartite union of Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. A number of factors show the possibility of the development of such scenario.
First, there is Russia's treaty on strategic partnership with both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. If to regard the rapprochement of these two Central Asian republics in a broader context, that is, from the point of view of opposing the growing influence of Islamic extremism in the region, Russia becomes a participant in a new strategic alliance only by intensively pursuing its policy in the region. It may not be institutionalized, but implemented along the Moscow - Tashkent line and Astana - Tashkent line on a bilateral basis. It is to be remembered that last April during I. Karimov's visit to Moscow a package of documents on various spheres of cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Uzbekistan was signed - from the economy to interaction of the special services of the two countries.
Secondly, the significance of the economic factor does not diminish - there are close economic ties between Russia and Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. The former continued to be the leader among the trade partners of Uzbekistan by the results of 2012 (it accounted for 29 percent of the foreign trade turnover of Uzbekistan). Last May Uzbekistan signed a treaty on a free-trade zone within the CIS framework. This is supposed to expand considerably the sales market for Uzbek commodities.
The visit of President Vladimir Putin to Kazakhstan last July, apart from solving mature problems in the outer space sphere, was
largely devoted to the further strengthening of relations between the two countries It was also announced that preparations would begin for changing the basic treaty on good-neighborliness and cooperation, as well as the agreement on cooperation between the special services of the two countries.
* * *
Today, when Russia is trying to prevent the growing influence of the United States in Central Asia, and China is increasing its presence in the region, the Central Asian countries face the task of determining their main foreign-policy orientations. The principal factors of the rapprochement of Central Asia and the Russian Federation are their close territorial proximity, common security problems, and complementarity of their national economies.
"Rossiya i noviye gosudarstva Evrazii," Moscow, 2013, No III (XX), pp 5-14.
Dina Malysheva,
D. Sc. (Politics)
CHALLENGES TO SECURITY IN CENTRAL ASIA
All countries on our planet meet with challenges to their security. They include not only terrorism, extremism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, drug trafficking, etc. There is also the deterioration of the environment, as well as global warming, destruction of forests, etc. Shortage of water is also a serious danger. All these global challenges and threats exist in Central Asia, too. Unfortunately, its countries are unable to find an adequate answer to these vital and endogenous challenges.
