Caleb Wall
|
Dear CAG Forum Users.
As the new moderator on this theme I welcome you all to what I hope will be a useful discussion. For those of us living and working here in Central Asia – it is vital that we have a positive discussion on different development perspectives and goals for the countries in the region. Likewise what happens here in CA has an immense impact on the rest of the world.
The theme of this e-discussion is ‘Institutional and Political Challenges and Opportunities for Integration in Central Asia’. I think that is topic has the potential for very fruitful discussion, from a wide variety of sources, and encompassing a wide range of views. Whilst the challenges for integration faced are immense, there is also a real potential to overcome these barriers. The common Soviet history, political conflicts, institutional problems and legal issues are all considerable barriers to integration – however I am confident that we can, indeed must, find ways to turn these points of divergence into points of convergence.
I hope that we can have an interesting debate on some of the following themes:
- The potential for the creation of supranational structures, (a Union of the Central Asian states) or intergovernmental agreements (CACO, SCO, etc.)
- How existing institutions can play a role in furthering regional integration
- Drug and crime control across borders
- The historical challenges to integration
- Any other issue that you find interesting or important.
However, to achieve this we need your input. All views are welcome, from all sources. Please post your messages in a responsible manner and visit frequently to watch how the discussion progresses. We will also be featuring some articles ‘by invitation’, with input from International and Domestic experts.
I look forward to your input,
Caleb Wall
Forum Moderator – CAG portal
|
*Invited Expert*
|
** From Invited Expert - Kai Wegerich **
In the Amu and Syr Darya basin neither the old
allocation problems, which have not been solved during
the Soviet Union (Aral Sea and water for Afghanistan)
nor the provision problems, which only came into
existence because of the dis-integration of the Soviet
Union have been solved. In addition the
dis-integration has caused new allocation problems.
The riparian states are not any more integrated in the
issue linkage approach, which incorporated food,
energy and water. The new policies of all the
individual riparian states of food self-sufficiency
will lead to increases of the water demand upstream
and therefore put pressure on the downstream riparian
states as well as the Aral Sea. Furthermore, the
partial shift from high value cash crops (cotton) to
low value food crops (wheat) in the downstream
riparian states intensifies the current problem of
maintaining the water provision infrastructure.
Even though, in the Syr Darya basin all the riparian
states participated in the negotiations about water
allocation, it is questionable whether the set limits,
which were set during the Soviet Union should be
renegotiated. In the Amu Darya basin not even all
riparian states were present when the limits of
utilization were set. In addition, before agreements
can be reached on allocation, there should be
agreement about the water amount Afghanistan is
contributing to the annual flow of the Amu Darya. Any
future allocation to Afghanistan would decrease the
water availability for the current main stakeholders, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Water allocation to Afghanistan would put the downstream countries under pressure to change their current method of irrigation, and maybe to shift to less water demanding crops, which would decrease the income of the states. At the current state Afghanistan is not in a position to use its legitimate share, hence, one should raise the question whether Afghanistan could sell its share to the downstream countries, and use the money to rehabilitate and upgrade its water management infrastructure.
Kai Wegerich
|
Caleb Wall
|
With recent events in Uzbekistan - the debate on integration is as important as ever. It has been suggested that regional integration needs to take place between institutions at the government level.
However this requires interest and commitment from the governments in the region.
Eurasia news has an interesting article analysing why Uzbekistan has formally withdrawn from GUUAM, a regional grouping of states that also comprises Georgia and Ukraine.
I recommend reading the article online at:
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav050605a.shtml
What do you think about the article?
How is the Russian response to this weeks events in Andizhan going to influence political integration?
Caleb Wall |
Caleb Wall
|
Events over the past weekend in Uzbekistan have highlighted to me how great the challenges are to regional integration. It can be argued that until countries themselves are able to respect democratic institutions and the rule of law within their own countries, they will not be able to respect laws and institutions BETWEEN countries.
Likewise, the lack of concensus within countries makes it much more difficult to decide what can be achieved by regional co-operation.
Whilst supranational structures may seem very tempting and certainly offer a great deal - I am not convinced that the individual governments of Central Asia are ready to commit to limitations on their own power.
What do you think? |
Gert Jan Veldwisch
|
Water allocations on basin level SHOULD be re-negotiated, in the same way as they are being re-negotiated in many trans-boundary river basins in the world (see e.g. the Limpopo and Nile negotiations). There is no reason to stick to the use rights established by the Soviets. The changing of geo-political relations requires a flexibility in water allocations, especially in a (lightly) water scarce basin as the Aral Sea basin. A functioning platform in which these issues can be discussed could offer the opportunity to trade-off trans-national advantages and disadvantages.
A future increase of water use in the upstream countries of the Amu Darya basin could indeed (as Kai mentioned) increase the pressure on water use by Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. However, presently the water availability in the irrigated areas of these countries is high, water use efficiencies appear to be very low, and severe water scarcity seems to be only experienced in extremely dry years. The pressure on water availability in the Amu Darya basin is not so high that increased use in upstream areas will automatically have to result in reduced agricultural activities in downstream areas; when making use of water saving techniques there is a sufficient margin. Whatever the case, it will costs money for the downstream states and have negative effects on their agricultural sector.
Attuning policies in specific areas is already very difficult and so far results are not encouraging. Therefore thinking of further regional integration in the near future seems senseless.
Gert Jan Veldwisch
|
Caleb Wall
|
Dear Forum Users,
This week we will be discussing the role that existing institutions can play in furthering regional integration. By this we are talking about common agreements and institutions between the five central asian states. For example the CIS (which also includes all former Soviet states except Georgia and Azerbaijan. Especially the role that the Central Asian Union could play in the future. Or the challenges that explain why the Central Asian Union has been so ineffective so far.
There is an excellent background article by Alisher Ilkhamov, I encourage you to read it at: http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/ilkhamov.htm
I look forward to your comments,
Caleb Wall
|
Irina Ogay
|
On my point of view at some parts I’m agree with opinion of Alisher Ihkamov. Of course if one state became sovereign, they feel more powerful and may be think that other subsequent things will flow pretty well. But-no, as we were a part of Soviet Union, we were raised by their regime, so we taught like others, who lived in USSR.
Independent countries manage their economies themselves, but still need cooperation with other states; I think that none of any republic (or one individual) can live without interaction. Even a small creature assists to maintain process of life-chain, the same with the states, need to interact to work going well. Of course during the development process, what we have to go through, we have some number of unsettled interstate and regional problems like distribution of water and energy resources, the transport infrastructure and cross-country transit, and the problems of borders and visa regimes. (For example the system became more strict, especially with visas).But I want to say like an “integral part” of this “chain”, that we still in development process, so we should have a hope that these problems will be solved (of course not only hope, but also doing some actions). It ‘s actually problems not only of one country, almost every country wants to be a leader, but need to think, that not all the time you can (or will) be on the top, sometimes you need let your neighbour (or even opponent) have a leading hand in particular issue. So when the state became independent, it will want to be a leader in their own way, so when the problems raised between states, it’s actually competition between countries, and more powerful countries tried to take a leadership over other countries.(probably that’s why: everyone want to be on the top, and then sometimes can not come up to a common solution). Sometimes we follow some ideas, sometimes-not, but it doesn’t mean that somebody want totally separated from the world, just keep in some ideas or thoughts.
We should not forget the good things, when many nations unite for solving one task.
The important issue is terrorism, many peaceful nations should united and struggle together against this big problem, why terrorist’s work is organized, but not all the time we can say about “us”, we should help each other, when we needed; and should not afraid of something. Important thing that we should think also it’s: about young generation, which are growing now (and will active later), and think what they will have in the future.
|
Anonymous
|
Let’s talk about some things that happened in Andijan few weeks ago.
That’s was really surprise for many people I think in other regions, so much information recourses were on TV or radio, and sometimes the data, which was given were different, I think it suppose to be the same, but may be just in different words, but no – it was kind confusing. The thing is probably the best way to find out it’s to ask people, who doesn’t have a reason to hide something or add something; they will say what they have seen.
Even one time I heard when people were complaining what the source of information is true, to whom we should trust?!
So the same with few other problems, sometimes people just afraid say something, because they scared for their future or future of their family members. Of course who can guarantee that after you say something that will not be liked by people “on the top”, and later it has negative impact on your life. So, should we afraid of censorship or not, may be it’s another problem, when article or some information are read by big amount of people, it’s kind scary to say something bad or the things that could be not liked by someone. It happened before (especially during war times, for example for some people felt strangely, because for them: seems everywhere that strange people walking around and following them all the time, when you are outside, or even at home).
So people want to live normally, but sometimes we probably afraid of changes. It’s like, “what happened if …”, so I mean we can not blame people to not doing something, it’s a fear; but for government, I mean for the administration, on the elections population make their choice, they trust to those people, which are selected, and then citizens start noticed that many things that were promised government cannot afford. If you go for that, you must be pretty sure that your actions can bring some things to life, and it will be work. For what we learned for the entire life, not only make the mistakes all the times, we should learn some lessons from past arrangements, that we did before and find something new for not happening the same again. If some things are not working, just find what the reasons for that, and try to improve the situation or presage or work on new one.
When people fully understand all the importance of new things that could bring it to the progress, I think since then it’s start work, but until somebody will have pressure or make citizens scare of certain things, the same situation will continue, probably for ages.
Don’t be shy or be scare of some new things, try and most of the times, you start like new, when you adjust to it. It will seem pretty easy to do.
Do we need further co-operation with other countries; of course the answer will be “YES”(it’s on my opinion), because I think many people agree that on some sort of things in the group work easier, than themselves, when you have “a lot of brains” (smart people). Five states union have like: one country work individually, and also some issues that you need to work with a group. Integration certainly depends from how other things will be work. May be we need more time than others, but it should be work in some days.
|
Taraqqiyot
|
Salute everyone,
Great topic Caleb Wall! If I may, I wanted to throw my two pennies in.
‘Institutional and Political Challenges and Opportunities for Integration in Central Asia’, sounds very interesting, since the word "integration" has not been explained, I would apply the general meaning of the word.
Integration in Central Asia is necessary for Central Asian countries. However, there are several threats, risks and challanges invilved around this issue. On global level, neighbours of Central Asia such as China, Russia and Iran are not likely to support integration among CA countries. China, with its "terrorism threats" or already existing separatist movements on its western borders (Eastern Turkestan) who are culturally, religiously, politically, and economically closer to Central Asia is not interested to see formulation of a more integrated and politically united Central Asia.
China's major fear is that re-unified Turkestan would inspire thier relatives in China and even would start to have more cultural and/or political influence in Eastern Turkestan than official Beijing. Uzbek leader's invitation to Beijing had more political reasons than "economic" as it is being trumpheted in Uzbek media. Beijing prefers to act first and impose its political influence on close relatives of "troublesome part" of China.They also want to have full control of trade-business relations between East Turkestan and Central Asia before these relations turns into something else.
Iran which has large number of Arab, Baluchi, and especially Turkic (Azeri/Horasani Turk/Turkmen/Uzbek,etc) "minorities" fears that Central Asia in the East and Azerbaijan and Turkey in the north and north/east will have more influnece to its Turkic minorities than official Tehran. By the way, Iran's lands, where largely Turkic people are concentrated, is the only territory that connects the borders of Azerbaijan and Turkey with Turkestan (Central Asia) by drylands. Moreover, Tehran does not to see another major political power in the region to deal with. It is easier for Iran to work with 5 different countries with different political orientations. Unlike China however, it is hard to say Iran will strictly resist the Central Asian integration. Given the historical, religious, and cultural ties, and possibly dependance of this integration on Russia, Iran's close ally, Iran may fell fine with the integration process in Central Asia.
Finally Russia. Russia may applause the Central Asian Integration (CAI) or do its best to prevent it.Why Russia would applause the CAI? Like Mr. Wall mentioned CA countries have "the common Soviet history" and that is actually Russia's main card in retaining its political leadership in the region. So far, it is doing great, especially under the Putin's administration. Putin's Russia is doing its best to keep the Central Asian countries within its' political orbit. Lately, Russia began to put more political pressure on Uzbek leadership. One thought on the way, the Uzbek leadership cautioned from US democracy/human rights doctrine and concerned with increasing imperialist moods of Russian leadership might have seen China as its new supporter among super-powers. Back to Russia, this country can support Central Asian integration if the integration itself is built upon "the common Soviet history" which in my opinion would mean serving the imperialist interests of Russia. Russia is not interested in seing even Uzbekistan in GUUAM. I believe Russian side has used some its political and other liverages over the Uzbek side, first to bring Uzbekistan into "Shanghai five" (in cooperation with China) and then to take it out from GUUAM. It is hard to predect what would be next. Official Russia openly supported the Uzbek leadership in Andijan events and currently has the chance to trying to show the Wast as a threat to the Uzbek leadership and to convince them to increase "integration" with Russia. Latelest, 2005 US Peace Corps volunteers have to leave the country, they failed to renew their expired visas. Currently, Russia is spending billions of dollars to broadcast radio and tv to CA region, printed media and books are also being effectively transferred, newest technological advancements such as softwares, internet technologies, electronic equipments, and even Holliwood movies are immediately being translated into Russian to make sure they will enter Central Asia in Russian language.
Russia, on the other hand, is not interested to see CAI without its presense, in other words, it does not want to see Central Asia develop a new, intependent political position for itself. Like Mr. Wall said, "political conflicts, institutional problems and legal issues are all considerable barriers to integration". Russia will likely use these existing isues and barriers to prevent integration that does not staticfy its political priorities.
Wait and see strategy is the best for Central Asian countries in terms of integration. Currently, it is virtually impossible to see optimal integration in Central Asia. Why? When most countries are still strugling to identify their own national political course, it is illogical to talk about integration that will not lead to more political dependance to Moskow. A generation or two has to change until we can realistically talk about integration. Central Asian countries are like 5 small ships sailing on the small river in mountanious constantly trying not to hit a stone and make it to the sea. When they will be on the sea, they will have more time, opportunity and reasons to integrate or even they can build one big ship.
Any other issue that you find interesting or important - Public relations/working language of international organizations and dipomatic missions in Uzbekistan and other parts of Central Asia.
Looking at the international and diplomatic community in Uzbekistan one can observe that the working language is mainly Russian, almost all expatriate staff are trained to speak Russian and have degrees in Russian and East European Studies. A question comes: What is wrong with that?
Well there are pros and cons. First about positive sides of that. Russian is spoken by more people and countries in the workd. An expat staff or a diplomat has more broader carrer horizons with Russian than one with Uzbek. Everyone speaks or can speak Russian. Local governments themselves use Russian more than the state language.
Recently me and one of my acqaintances had a talk with one US embassy expat staff in Uzbekistan about the language issue. Her main arguement was "Uzbek is a one-country language". But our question about whether Romanian, Slovak, Thai, or Vietnamese were "one-country" or multiple-country languages was left unanswered.
Together with above listed pros, there are several negative externalities. First of all, preference of Russian language by international workers and diplomats in Uzbekistan will practically prove the supremacy of Russian over Uzbek to locals who are already fluded by Russian media and advertisements. This, in turn, will create more sympathy towards the re-creation of the Soviet Union which may extreamly please Russia. Secondly, not everyone, especially young people speak Russian in Uzbekistan. If the an organization's or diplomatic mission's PR language is Russian, than only those who can speak Russian may be able to interact with the organization and use its services. By this, the majority's (who speak Uzbek) preference is being undermined in favor of minority's (who speak Russian). Thirdly, this is also creating mirepresentation among local workers of an international organizations. Most vacancy announcements state "English and Russian required, Uzbek is an asset" or "fluency in English and Russian, and knowledge of Uzbek preferrable". What does it mean? To me, it means the institution is looking for a Russian-speaking candidate who can time-by-time interact with expat staff in English, and help them in practicing their Russian. Regardless of this Uzbek-speaking candidate's chances are limited in comparition to a russian-speaking one, throughout Soviet time and currently Russian-speaking people learn English as their second language while Uzbek-speakers learn English as their third languge. Recently I refused one position at "Civic Community Improvement Assitance Idea" (names are changed) because because I failed to explain to expat staff Robin Kransen and local staff Jalila Babahanova that it is not possible to "assist communities to improve" by having double-laguage barier (English and Russian). Babahanova stated that I had to be able to communicate in Russian correctly and clearly. Despite knowing Russian fluently (studied in Russian), I asked if it was possible to communicate in English and Uzbek with staff and constitutients, since all staff are supposed to speak English and "preferably" Uzbek, and more importantly, it is easier to interact with beneficiaries in their first language. I was not given a compelling reason for not doing that.
Briefly to say, cureently most international organizations and diplomatic missions in Uzbekistan are knowlingly or unknowingly supporting "Central Asian Integration" which in the best interests of Russia!
Can't wait to read responses!
P.S. My hat is off for CAFE (Central Asian Free Exchange) and the US Peace Corps/Uzbekistan for their fair approach to the use of language!
|
Caleb Wall
|
Dear Taraqqiyot,
Thanks for your great posting! I enjoyed reading about your analysis of the current political situation - some of the points you made (like on the real motivation for Chinese policy) are really unique. I am interested to hear more of your input.
One question that would arise - especially given the issues about Russia's policy in the region and the language policies of some International Organisations - is the historical legacy of Russian rule and the challenges it has to further integration.
One argument that some people make is that because the CA states were ruled from Moscow for so long (prior to 1917 in some ways) that the new states do not want to share their sovereignty any more than they have to.
Another argument that some people make (and I do not necessarily agree with it) is that because Tashkent was the centre of power for Central Asia during the Soviet time - this complicates issues. Tashkent still expects to be the centre of any integration - wereas the other states see that they have developed beyond the Soviet period.
Finally - one aspect of the historical legacy could be the desire for total Independence. We can see Turkmenistan as an extreme example of a country that wants to have no allegiances with other states. To what extent is this normal for the region?
I am interested in yours and other people's feedback on these issues:
Yours,
Caleb Wall
|
Taraqqiyot
|
Dear Taraqqiyot,
Hello Mr. Wall, and thanks for the attention and comments to my post. I will try to comment on the arguments you have listed.
Perhaps I am slightly going off the topic, but it was Tsarist and Communist Russia who had created national identities such as “Uzbek”, “Turkmen”, “Kazakh”, “Kirgiz”, “Tajik”, “Karakalpak” etc. Yes, these itentities did exist even before Imperialist Russia came to Central Asia. However, they existed in sort of subnational level. The Central Asian Turkic, a unique mixture of all dialects in the region, was the standard language for the region. That language was neither Uzbek, nor Kazah, Uygur, Turkmen,etc. It was a standard language used by all people in the region, good examples of comparision can be standard Arabic, German, Chinese, Persian, Spanish, etc. Together with standard Turkic, Persian was a court language, and Arabic persisted among religious clergy in Central Asia. Writings of Maxtulquli (so called Turkmen poet), Furqat (so called Uzbek poet), Mustafa Chuqaev or Abay (so called Kazakh poets) or even so called Uygur Islamic scholar Alihantura Sag’uniy (author of the famous Tarihi Muhammadiya, History of Muhammad) are all still easily understood by well-educated people of all people in the region. All of the above-mentioned historical figures probably belonged to Turkmen, Kazah, Uygur, or Uzbek identity, but they wrote in standard Turkic. It is like Sicilian is Italian and writes in Italian.
What I am trying to explain is Imperialist Russia and Communist Russia destroyed this language and nourished tribal and subnational identities to make them different and separate national identities from each others. The last representatives of Central Asian Unity, followers of Jadidism movement were smashed by communists. Currently they are getting a lot of credit as “educational movement”, which is good, but I would say it was a popular, plitical movement based on the idea of developing the region through religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative, and educational reforms. One example, they switched to Latin alphabet from Arabic, but later it was replaced by Cyryllic. Ironically, Baltic Republics, Armenia and Georgia swith to Cyryllic alphabet. Communists basically forced Muslim/Turkic republics (Central Asia, Azerbaijan, Tatarstan, Kremia, and other nationalities of the North Caucasus and Siberia) to change their alphabet into cyrllic. I suppose by doing this they wanted to impose more direct Russain influence and distance them away from possible similarities and interactions with their religious and ethnic reatives on the other parts of the world, while Baltic republics, Georgia and Armenia hardly had any close cultural or religious relatives outside USSR. Especially Georgia and Armenia percieved Russia as their protector from Turkey, Iran and other Muslim countries. To give more examples, Moldova also switched to Cyryllic because of its close similarities with neithbouring Romania (they are basically the same nation), even if the latter was in a Socialist block.
So, Russia put the Central Asian countries in isolation and then separated them from each other inside the USSR. I absolutely agree with your saying that “...argument that some people make (and I do not necessarily agree with it) is that because Tashkent was the centre of power for Central Asia during the Soviet time”. Indeed, Soviet regime attempted to minimize any intependant relations between CAR. All interactions were made on bumerang method trough Moskow.
Efforts of more than 100 years had given its results. Especially during the Soviet regime CARs have developed strong national itentities. As an irony of the time and history, today they can only interact in Russian. Today they pay more attention and speak speak about differences than similarities. Unfortunately, the only similarities that are taken into account are “common Soviet heritage”. Russia and other interested stakeholders are working hard on “warning or scaring off” the other CARs from “possible Uzbek agression” and even exagerating problematic issues among each others too.
A quote - “Tashkent still expects to be the centre of any integration.” – if that is true, it is gotta be the biggest mistake in the process of integration. Somewhere in this forum Bahtiyor Ergashev used the phrase of “Locomotive”, I would say “locomotives” must be RECOGNIZED not claimed by one or another country.
A quote - ”Finally - one aspect of the historical legacy could be the desire for total Independence. We can see Turkmenistan as an extreme example of a country that wants to have no allegiances with other states. To what extent is this normal for the region?”
I would say, CARs have to live through at least their nearest future on their own, interecting by each others in a way they want it or like it. Overpushing the events forward or extreme enthusiasm does not well pay off as we have began to obeserve in the example of EU. The geopolitical situation in the region, interests of Russia, Iran, China, and the US and the will eventually force the CARs to come together. In history, Kokand Khanate and Khiva Khanate had agreed to join forces in resisting the increasing Russian pressure. Unfortunately, Amir of Bukhara made a short-sighted political decision and began sharing intelligence information with Russia and Brtain at the same time hoping to gain control over the wekaned two Khanates who were scared by the extrenal threat. Unlike Khiva and Kokand, Bukhara did not have much direct borders with Dashti Qipchaq (territory of current Kazakhstan) who was gradually falling down to the Russian empire. Many say that history often repeats itself, maybe therefore the second part of Great Game have began after almost 150 years later. Others say, people cannot change their fate, who knows what fate is expecting Central Asia this time. There is a proverb in Central Asia “Kuch birlikda” which means power is in unity.
Regards,
Taraqqiyot.
|
Taraqqiyot
|
Correction to the message above:
Please read as "Ironically, Baltic Republics, Armenia and Georgia DID NOT SWITCH to Cyryllic alphabet." at the end of the second (big) paragraph. |
Caleb Wall
|
Dear Forum participants,
I am pleased to announce that the mid-term results summary on the e-discussion on the following issue: “Institutional and Political Challenges and Opportunities for Integration in Central Asia’' are now available.
If you would like to receive a copy of the mid-term results summary of this e-discussion, please, send a message to cagateway@cer.uz.
Further contributions are welcome!
We look forward to all of your contributions! |
Caleb Wall
|
Dear Taraqqiyot,
First of all - great pen name. A very nice historical allusion which I appreciate.
Secondly, well done on such a broad ranging input into the historical challenges to regional integration. I agree with much of your analysis and have several critiques which I will set out below:
1) The creation of national identities was of course engineered by the Soviet Union. The creation of nation states as ethincally defined regions (with deliberate minority and majority ethnicities) is one of the enduring impacts of the Soviet period. This taken, I wonder then what challenges this poses to Intergration. On one side it makes integration more important, as one nations majority (say, Uzbeks in Uzbekistan) is one nations minority (in this case, Uzbeks in Kirgizstan). Thus regional integration is a way to re-unite divided ethnicities - even divided families - by promoting greater cross border trade. On the other hand - because these national identities were imposed on the CA states - people define themselves in terms of their ethnicity as well as their nationality. In such a case, people do not see themselves as 'Central Asians' but rather as Tajiks (for example) who are defined as different (linguistically as well as ethiincally) from Turkmen. Thus integration is made more difficult.
2) Of course national soveringity is a crucial aspect in regional integration. This is one of the historical issues I raised in an earlier posting. Because the CA republics have only newly acquired their independence - they are then not eager to surrender it to an outside body. However without laws and institutions between the states, which will bind these states to certain actions and thus reduce sovereingity - regional integration will be difficult to acheive.
Despite these challenges - there are some real benefits to promoting integration. Perhaps the biggest being the economic benefits of integration - certainly a key part of reducing the poverty that exists (to varying extents) within all five republics.
|
Taraqqiyot
|
Dear Caleb Wall,
I think our discussion is going well and hope you are also enjoying it as much as I am doing. Your interest to the regional integration and caring about the future of CA is impressive.
1. I completely agree with the points you have made. Like I mentioned earlier, I personally am not going to support any type of “integration” if it would serve the (imperialist) interests of neighboring super-powers rather than CARs. To my understanding first of all CARs should collectively define what the integration should look like. This should not happen in one or two-day meeting of the government officials. Large public, residents of the CARs should be actively involved in the process of creating generic (for all parties) definition of the CAI. We all (at least from now on) well know that the segregation of Central Asia was made based on ethnicities and nationalities. However, it is also widely known that Uzbeks Kokand and Tajiks of Hojand are far more close each other than to Uzbeks of say, Kaskadarya or Tajiks of Dushanbe. I am not going to talk too much about it, but the point I am trying to make is inevitable traditional and geographical connections and links are still there. The integration process should put more emphasis on such aspects. If the segregation process made on ethnicity, integration process should be based on economic cooperation, religious and cultural practices, and democracy. However, this process should not be directed from any outside party, nor any CAR should claim the role of “locomotive”. Integration will occur on its own: governments of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan or Tajikistan take away bridges, mine border areas while people keep building new bridges and risk their lives to go through landmines.
2. Increasing pressure from outside powers like Russia, China, Iran, USA, etc will eventually force CARs (Kazakhstan may be an exception) to come together to protect their those newly acquired sovereignties you mentioned. Even if the Uzbek, Tajik, Turkmen, etc policies seem to be different from outside, reasons or root causes of doing so are the same. Turkmenistan is concerned about Iran and Russia, Tajikistan looks vulnerable in the shade of China and Russia, Uzbekistan is caught between Russia and USA, Kyrgyzstan….
I also see the building blocks of integration on economic partnership, however there are a lot of contradicting points in economic interests of the CARs currently. All CARs often easily take opposite sides with each other on greater international affairs. Positions of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan on Caspian basin issue are not the same. Interestingly enough, Turkmenistan is sided with Iran and Kazakhstan with Russia. Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan are member of EVRAZES, while Uzbekistan was a member of GUUAM, and Turkmenistan abstained from both of these polarized unions. Many acknowledge that dissimilar political positions of CARs represent narrow personal or group interests of ruling elites and do not necessarily have large public support nor do they serve for the political, economic, and social growth of the countries thus, the region.
In conclusion, I would say that “the integration” must be first defined and mutually agreed by CARs at grass-roots level. The overwhelming emphasis must be placed on cultural, religious, and social aspects. Economic growth, political stability and security, sovereignty of the member states, and social welfare must be defined as overarching purposes of the integration. Democratic principles, pluralism, social justice, and non-partisanship must prevail during the process of integration. Here non-partisanship means CARs must not side with any super-powers, and instead maintain their own political course that will serve the best interests of the people of CA. They must not also allow any country such as Russia, China, or USA to be present in meetings and decision-making process of CARs even in the role of an “observant”, CARs also must not take funding or any financial aid from any country for the sake of CAI. Finally, “Common Soviet History” must never be seen as strengths of the integration process, if necessary, every country must use their own state language during all meetings and communicate it to others through interpreters.
Indeed, this type of integration is not realistically feasible at this point, therefore, roughly to say, status quo is temporarily the best option for the region. The process of full-strength regional integration should begin after considerable political and social changes in CARs, especially among the ruling elite.
Taraqqiyot.
|
shuhrat hudayqulov
|
Hi to forum users,
I just wanted to give my own opinion about some messages. First of all I waned to talk about integration in CA and Russia. I think Russia will applause it. And there was a sentence like CA countries have "the common Soviet history" and that is actually Russia's main card in retaining its political leadership in the region. But is it really like that? Do you think it is a main card in retaining political leadership. May be can say it is the best reason and way to get into the CA but I’m not to the political leadership. And I wanted to talk a little about the events in Andizhon few weeks ago. I do not have ideas why it happened but I just wanted to give my opinion about the censorship. To my mind it would have been better if the Uzbek TV channels had given more news themselves and not hidden (if we can say). If you do not want the nation to panic give all the news yourself and do not let the other TV channels gossip or give false information. There in one f the messages I have read that people do not know which information is true. Some people still do not know what has happened there. People have a lot of information sources but not all of them are true. Then do not let the others make problem for you and give more information. I am very sorry for the people whose sons, daughters or relatives have died there.
|
*Invited Expert*
|
Some remarks to the ongoing discussion on historical aspects:
If we talk nowadays about the prospects or benefits or even necessity of an integration of Central Asian countries, we are often confronted with the thesis that a in the past the level of integration was very high and that the Russian / Soviet regime with its divide and rule strategem led to the fragmentation of the region.
I would like to put some challenges to this view out for your consideration.
The region we are talking about is only seen as a whole BECAUSE of Russian rule. The very term is a result of it, as its geographical borders are. More or less the same is true for the term Turkestan it is understood and used nowadays (leaving „Eastern Turkestan“ out of the discussion).
Historically, one of the most prominent features characterizing this region (Central Asia) was the confrontation of the nomadic with the sedentary world, of Turan and Iran, of Turkic (approximately since the 6th century a.d.) and Persian. The juxtaposition of these worlds ended only with the forced sedentarization during the soviet era. However, the heritage of it is still visible or can be felt in a many ways.
Nationalism and the national identities marking the republics of today were not a bolshevist import to the region. Central Asia intellectuals had started to conceive of their societies in terms of nations before the bolshevist ascension to power. The idea that the the whole region belonged together and should form a single entity (i.e. being integrated as much a possible) was conceived of during that time (usually referred to as „pan-turkic“) and is not possible to be thought of without the fact of the Russian Empire setting the borders for that entity. At the same time, there were many Central Asian voices opposing this view and claiming the right to existence for smaller entities. In 1917, the concepts were still very much in flux. The influence of the Bolsheviks led to the demise of the „pan-turkic“ idea. At the same time, the delimitation of the Region into national republics was a process (starting in about 1920 and coming to a forced end in 1936) the Bolshevik leadership in Moscow could not really control. Regional actors and dynamics played the most important role in it. The new borderlines themselves as well as the fact of their constant revision reflected mostly local and regional cleaveages.
Thus, we are dealing with a region that did not have a unity in past. Actually, already in the 1920ies the new national republic were very assertive in claiming their rights and borders, which led e.g. to problems for nomads whose access to pastures became subject to special treaties between some of the new countries.
However, me might remember Europe. What is moving together now has actually never had a unity in the past. Only European thinkers and historians have – over a very long period – constructed the idea of a Europe that belongs together in terms of culture, religion, and history. Europe has seen wars and very strong nationalist movements – Europeans have killed each other for many centuries. However, nowadays the idea of unity is growing stronger and stronger – even if there is a lot of scepticism and the idea of the constitution is not accepted my the majority of citizens in countries like France or the Netherlands. Could this be true for Central Asia as well? Then we might have good prospect for a successfull integration.
Gero Fedke
gero.fedtke@wecf.org
|
Taraqqiyot
|
Welcome Gero Fedke,
It was interesting to read your comments. Even though you ended your post in noticably optimistic tone, it seems like you posess very subjective and single-sided information about the historical traces of integration and unity in Central Asia. I have heard similar comments from many other people as well, but unlike you, they were not indroduced as “invited expert”. Therefore, I have exited to have the honor to exchange ideas with an “invited expert”.
I respectfully disagree to the statement you have made in your opening paragraph about the history of integration and unity of Central Asia (as westerners likes to call it). You basically reject that there was a unity and high level of integration in Central Asia. Let us think outside the box, take the example of Middle East, South Asia, East Asia, Europe, Latin America, etc. What do you see? Aren’t they integrated, united in some ways with each other? Pleace, let us put aside the debate about whether or not geographical locations can cause intense integration and uinity among people. That too primitive, of course unity and integration begins with geographical closness!
I am in awe and wow thinking how did you manage to ignore munti-thousand year history of integration and unity in Central Asia and stated that actually Russians brought “unity”. Sir “expert”, that is unbelivable! The terms “Turkestan”, “Turan”, “Transaxonia”, “Mavara’un nahr”, “Central Asia”, etc are all irrejectable evidences that a certain level of indegration, unity existed in the region much, much earlier than Russian came to the region. Read more historical books, when Russians came to the region, people used to identify theselves as “Muslim” and/or “Turk”. Only after this followed tribal identities. Howcome Russians named the region as “Turkistan”??? Why not “Rusistan” or “Europistan”??? By the way, do you know why Turkey called itself as “Turkey”? Because “Turkestan” already existed. Why did you leave “Eastern Turkestan” out of discussion? Why would it be called as “EASTERN” Turkestan? Try to geuss! Because Turkestan already did exist.
Can you please explain to me, where in what region of the world, “confrontation of the nomadic with the sedentary world” was NOT charaterizing features of the regions? Barbarians and Romanians in Europe, Beduins and sedentary people in Middle East, etc.
Actually to you information, when the earliest Turks came to the region (henceforth the region began to be called Turan), East Iranian tribes were also nomadic and semi/nomadic, their level of civilization did not differ much from their Turkic counterparts. Turks and proto-turks came to the region not on voluntary basis. They were forced by changing climate conditions. Prior to coming (beginning from 7th centuries B.C.), they lived in Altai/Ural region and mainly had sedentary and semi/sedentary lifestyle. They were masters of metalwork, craftsmen, they had alphabet and writings, well organized kingdoms, and semeteries with plenty of stoneworks. Rich resources of Ural mountains were key income of the Turks. Even today many Turkic names are related to metals such as Temir/Demir (iron), Polat/Bolat (steel), Tashtemir (stone-iron), Tashpolat (stone-steel), etc. How come a nation which had long traditions of metanwork, craftsmanship with its own writing system, cemeteries with astonishing stoneworks, a nation who created powerful and organized empires can be considred as “nomadic”? Howcome world-famous historical monuments in Central Asia (in O’sh, Jalalabad, Yassi-current “turkestan”, Kokand, Ho’jand, Samarkand, Buhara, Hiva, Marv, Urganch, Termez, Karshi, Dashaguz, Kunya-Urganch, Tashkent, etc) were built by Turkic people? Why there is virtually nothing (with the exeption of Ismail Samani’s (the Arabic Caliphate clerk) small tomb) is built by non-Turkic people?
However, I can acknowledge that among people of Dashti Qipchaq (current territory of Kazakhstan and Kirgizstan with the exception of the southern parts like Chimkent and O’sh) nomadic lifestyle existed until resently. And yes, Dashti Qipchaq was noted as slightly different region from Turkestan because of its overly nomadic culture. Yes, Russians forced them to settle and accept the lifestyle suggested by Russians. But can you persuade me that Kazakhs, Kirgizs, Karakalpaks, and partly Turkmens would not have adopted sedentary lifestyle othervise? Are you aware how Russians destroyed the unique culture of nomadic Turks? Are you aware how they oppressed the religious treaditions? Are you aware that they discouraged their native language and today many young people cannot speak the language of their ancesstors? Can you describe this as a “progress”? How can “ still visible” sedentary lifestyle can prefent integration in Central Asia (without Russian superiority)?
None here wrote that nationalism and national identities did not exist, read more carefully. But there was a unique way of unity among Central Asian people (without an outside influence). But it is proved by modern scholars that nationalism and striving to national identity especially increases among ex-colonial societies. I believe this is a natural response to the imperialist ambitions.
Throughout history and even today this region is a land people people who are historically, religiously, culturally, linguistically (even with Tajik, because Uzbeks or Kazakhs can understand more Tajik than Russians or Englishmen do) interconnected to each other. The point I am trying to make is the region was intensely integrated and unified before Russian presence, and CAN be integrated and unified without Russian presence again. Does it make sense?
Dear friend, I am not much interested about Europe, even if I am, I am not going to discuss it here. As a person who has its own understanding about history and world affairs, I can assure you, agressive efforts to politically unite the Europe will result in bi crisis. Geven the fact that both World Wars originated from Europe, it is hardly belivable that this region can unite. I wonder why some people take cenrtain things for granted. Like if something happens in Europe or North America it is “progressive” and “democratic”, but none can predict the concequences. One example, the concept of family led to the development of a “society” in human history, but in current “western” culture this concept is distorting, many live with no families, many have chindren without marriage and take no responsibility for them, gays can “legally marry each other”, people can “legaly consume” some drugs (while they impose various sanctions on countries that produce those drugs), most “western” countries have negative population growth, their level of energy cosumption is cosmic.... Perhaps because our understanding of “development” are different, we will never come to a consensus about its meaning and how it should be done.
Time will prove what is development and what is not. But it can be too late then...Therefore, it is VERY important for us with whom to integrate and HOW to.
|
*Invited Expert*
|
Dear Friends :
I am attaching my comments on the subject RE :" Institutional and Political Challenges and Opportunities for Integration in Central Asia." It amounts to a rather lenghty and , perhaps, difficult essay ( with quantified behavioural factors and some basic algebraic apparatus ) . It is based on my personal experience in the Region and my , soon to be published , publication, denoted in bibliography as lit.[ 1 ] . I believe that the subject matter is too important ( to all my friends and the rest of the population of the Silk Route societies ) to leave it to unqualified personal opinions only . That said , I understand perhaps more than most ( being brought up in one of the COMECON country ; and eventually becoming an ADM of that country in COMECON apparatus ) what's at stake there . Wishing you all the best and with highest regards , I am
Yours sincerely ,
Mirek Karasek
http://www.cagateway.org/downloads/Karasek.pdf
|
Caleb Wall
|
Dear Forum Users,
We now enter our last full week of discussion with our fourth and final discussion topic "The Economic Beneifts of Integration in Central Asia". This topic is chosen to provide some positive perspectives - realising that there challenges to integration - especially the historical challenges - are immense.
We begin with a piece from an Invited Expert - Dr Marc Muller - a Post-Doctoral Fellow at Bonn University (Germany) and close colleague of mine. He has, controversially, labelled his piece 'Prospects for a unified Turkestan' - making a direct reference to the historcial debate we have had over the past week.
I hope that our lively debate will continue for the next week - please feel free to respond to the latest inputs or provide your perspective on any of the previous themes.
Yours,
Caleb Wall
Moderator |
.gif){kind=logo}
