CC BY
19
Andrey Kazantsev, candidate of political sciences (MGIMO) THE REPUBLICS OF THE CENTRAL ASIA: THE FOREIGN POLICY IN MANY VECTORS AND GEOPOLITICAL UNCERTAINTY
Since disintegration of the USSR in 1991, the Central Asia as an international region with five independent states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) exists as a specific regional sub-system of international relations. Nevertheless, this region is characterized by a high geopolitical uncertainty in terms of regional identity, definition of borders and international institutions of the corresponding regional sub-system. This uncertainty is one of the most significant characteristics of "New Great Game", i.e. the geopolitical rivalry of the key world actors for the influence in the region after disintegration of the USSR.
For the Soviet period, the Central Asian republics politically and economically were separated from the external world by "the iron curtain" and were mainly connected with other republics of the USSR. After its disintegration the traditional diversity and many-vector foreign policy external economic interests of the region's states restored rather quickly. Both Turkic and Iranian by origin, nomadic or settled peoples living for many centuries along a key transportation artery of the world got acquainted to the many-vector foreign orientations. The process of restoration of old cultural, historic, religious and commercial ties started in the end of Gorbachev reconstruction. As a result at present, the interests of the Central Asian states are dispersed not only in various countries-partners but also among key regions of the world.
The foreign policy interests and priorities of the countries of the Central Asia since the year of 2006
Country Interests spheres and partners Foreign policy interests and priorities Type of foreign policy
1 2 3 4
Kazakhstan Economic sphere: Russia, China, post-Soviet states, USA, EU. Foreign policy sphere: Russia, China, USA 1. Many-vector policy. 2. Common integration projects with Russia. 3. Common investment projects with China. 4. Cooperation with American and European oil and gas and other big resource companies. 5. Military cooperation with NATO and USA (construction of naval base in Atyrau. Open foreign policy. Powerful stress on integration.
Uzbekistan Economic sphere: Russia, China, ATR countries. Military-political sphere: Russia and China. 1. Tension with USA and EU on democratization. Play based on their geopolitical rivalry with Russia and China. 2. Interest in foreign investments from ATR, China and Russia particular. 3. Interest in China and Russia as countries with minimal demands to human rights and democratic standards. 4. NATO military base (Germany) in Termez. Isolationism elements. Stress on bilateral relations.
Kyrgyz-stan Economic sphere: EU, Russia, China, USA, Kazakhstan. Military-political sphere: Russia, China, USA. 1. Many vector policy. 2. Interest in investments of all probable external partners. 3. Big migration flows to Kazakhstan and Russia. 4. Military bases of NATO (USA) and Russia. Open foreign policy. Strong stress on integration.
Tajikistan Economic sphere: EU, Russia, China, USA, Kazakhstan, Iran. Military-political sphere: Russia, China, EU, USA 1. Interest in investments of all probable external partners. 2. Big migration flows to Russia and Kazakhstan. 3. Military bases of Russia, NATO (France), interest of India in military base in Aini. Moderate stress on integration. Combination of elements of closed and open foreign policy.
1 2 3 4
Turkmenistan Economic sphere: Russia, EU, USA, China, Ukraine, Iran, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Turkey. Military-political sphere -officially recognized by UN neutral status 1. Dependence on Russian infrastructure in gas export. 2. Many vector gas export policy. 3. Search for alternative routes of gas export. Main interested parties: China, EU, USA, Turkey, India, Pakistan and Iran. 4. Use by USA of the base Mary-2 for cargo delivery to Afghanistan. Isolationism. The stress on Bilateral relations.
It is significant to stress the following trends
All Central Asian countries carry out the many-vector policy oriented to cooperation with the greatest number of partners. Hence, emerges the need of membership in numerous international organizations representing various regions of the world. In terms of foreign policy type the CA countries are divided into two definite groups. One group consists of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. They are open for integration in all possible directions and take part in activities of various international organizations and always support extension of integration within their framework (although they do not always comply with the corresponding limitations).
The other group consists of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. They prefer not to transfer the authority of national states to multinational international organizations and prefer bilateral relations in spite of membership in these organizations. For the last period of Turkmenbashi rule, Turkmenistan preferred a definite isolationist policy. Due to its official neutral status Ashghabad did not participate in the Central Asian integration projects and did not take part in many regional structures supported by non-regional powers, such as Organization of Collective Security (ODKB) or Shanghai Organization of Cooperation
(ShOS). Tajikistan stands between these two groups of the states, although for the last years tends to the second model.
In different spheres (economy, politics) there exist different key partners of the CA countries. However, it is impossible to determine the dominant external partner in one of these countries. Their influence is always balanced, and this fact makes it possible for the CA leaders to use for their benefit the contradictions of external forces. For instance, Uzbekistan after Andijan events in its relations with China and Russia used their contradictions with the USA. Turkmenistan urges towards "organization" of the biggest possible competition among potential buyers of its gas.
The permanent rapid change of hierarchy of external partners takes place. Uzbekistan after Andijan events changed its orientation from the USA to mutual actions with Russia and China. For the last years, this country again took its interest to cooperation with the West. Tajikistan for the period of consolidation of E. Rakhmon regime increased the many-vector trend of its policy and reduced "the share" of Russian influence. The positions of external forces in Turkmenistan depend directly on the main directions of gas export. Therefore completion of the gas pipeline to China will result in rapid rise of its influence in the nearest future. In Kyrgyzstan during consolidation of K. Bakiyev power the military-political influence of Russia and China increased, while influence of the West decreased. The further conflict with Russia connected with closure of the American military base in Manas airport resulted in Bakiyev regime fall.
In total, the above described foreign policy interests and priorities of the Central Asian countries (a) are not determined in terms of choice of the key partners and the region of the world for orientation; (b) are very unstable in time (i.e. are not determined in terms of temporal measurement).
The indetermination grows also due to the fact that the CA states are very interested in involvement in the region of various external forces, which would make them achieve complex tasks of survival and internal development. The main interest of the CA countries is the receipt of the proposal, which solves the whole complex of existing problems - from economic to civilization problems. In its time, the belonging to the Soviet Union supposed just this solution: protection from external threats and suppression of extremism, access to technologies and infrastructure, integration in union and international economic ties, guaranties of interests of local elites and humanitarian development. At present, the national leadership of the Central Asia is in search of a new variant of the complex solution, which differs from the time of the USSR, notes E. Yatsenko as the President of Foundation "Heritage of Eurasia".
The paradox is as follows: being in need of an external partner, which, like Russia in Soviet times did it, could solve complex problems, the Central Asian countries are not ready to make the choice in favor of one key partner, i.e. to adopt the one-vector policy. Therefore they try to attract as many as possible different forces.
The many-vector foreign policy of the Central Asian countries consists in their readiness to cooperate with any partners (Russia, the USA, China, the EU countries, Turkey, Islamic states etc.), which express the wish to render assistance in solving regional problems. However, the CA countries, having acquired independence and the power to be in charge of their countries' national resources, are not yet ready to give "the control package" to some external force. And what is more, they often use cooperation with one big country as an additional argument in favor of attraction of interests of international competitors.
Such policy keeps the geopolitical "vagueness" of the region. The key partners are being looked for by new independent states in all
probable geographic directions. In this case the paradox is as follows: the unity of the region is preserved not due to the centripetal forces but thanks to the balance of the centrifugal forces. The Central Asia exists as a separate international region only because the diverse external forces prevent each other to dissolve it finally in the adjacent regions of the world.
The many-vector foreign policy of new independent states of the Central Asia is not a short-term phenomenon. This phenomenon exists almost twenty years, and given the lack of significant changes in the existing structure of the world policy it will hardly disappear earlier than in time of some decades.
"Vestnik instituía Kennana v Rossii", M, 2010, vol. 14, p. 19-25.
Zhyldyz Urmanbetova,
doctor of philosophical sciences
(The Kyrgyz-Russian-Slavonical University,
The Kyrgyz-Turkish University "Manas"), Kyrgyzstan
KYRGYZSTAN: A LOOK AT THE PRESENT
AND THE FUTURE
The analysis of the social-political situation in the Kyrgyz Republic (KR) makes it possible to speak about a crisis of the idea of democratic world in the whole Central-Asian region. Since the time of obtaining by Kyrgyzstan of sovereignty and proclamation of the democratic state almost two decades have past, which clearly show "the experience" of democracy's construction: for the last five years two revolutions took place and the Constitution of the country was changed several times. The intermediate outcome of such results leads to the
