India’s “knight’s move” to Central Asia

Posted on

 More than 2150 years ago, when the envoy of the Chinese emperor Zhang Qian, the “father-founder” of the Great Silk Road, reached the final point of his journey in the northern Bactria (current South Tajikistan), he was surprised to find that bamboo and other goods from China were available at the local market. This discovery of the famous Chinese traveler shows that ancient India had a trade route towards not only Southern China, but also Bactria, which was the largest region in ancient Transoxiana. In other words, the ancient trade road “from Bactria to India” existed before the discovery of the Great Silk Road.

Currently, when the world superpowers initiate large-scale projects for the revival of the Great Silk Road, India – the homeland of chess – is also starting its own serious game on trade route establishment in Central Asia. Due to the fierce competition with Pakistan, India cannot directly enter the Central Asian region through Afghanistan and has to opt for the “knight's move”.

The logic of the “knight's move” of India implies a direct marine connection between the Mumbai harbor and the Iranian harbor in Chabahar. With the railway (which is rapidly being built),  goods are transferred to Afghanistan and the Central Asian republics, and further to Russia and Europe, in this way bypassing Pakistan through the sea.

The Indian rush towards Central Asia contains not only the trade/economic component, but also covers the following “peacemaking” aspect:

1) Conflict resolution in Afghanistan

The first meeting between the foreign ministers of India and the five Central Asian countries took place in Samarkand in January 2019, organized by the Indian side upon the invitation of the Afghan foreign minister to this meeting (in a "5 + 1 + 1" format). The meeting addressed not only the creation of a trans-Afghan transit zone, but also the regulation of the Afghan crisis. This encounter has led to the creation of various strategies for resolving the long-lasting conflict in the region.

Neither the Soviet nor the NATO attempts to foster reconciliation in Afghanistan have been successful so far. The country remains unstable, which causes concerns among Afghanistan’s nearest neighbors. The above-mentioned ministerial meeting of the Indian Minister, Ms. Svaraj Sushma, with her Central Asian colleagues in Samarkand seems to have become a catalyzer for negotiations in Doha and Moscow.

Two other factors regarding Afghanistan need to be taken into consideration. First, the gradual withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan and the accession of Iran into the SCO in the near future will lead to success of the Indian mediation. Delhi, by having not only good relations with Afghanistan, but also a large amount of experience with resolving conflicts and crises situations non-violently, has more chances to influence the peacemaking process. The forty-year war in Afghanistan, with an active military intervention of the world superpowers, has completely exhausted the ability of these powers to resolve the conflict. Second, the joint Indian-Central Asian effort to achieve peace and social harmony in Afghanistan is guided by the principle of non-interference in internal affairs of a sovereign state (“panja shila” concept).

2) Involvement of Iran into the process of peace creation in Afghanistan

By entering Central Asia through Iran, India can actively involve this country in the trade-economic relations of the region and the whole Central Asia. The involvement of Iran in Central Asian affairs accelerates this country’ entry into the SCO. Iran’s accession to the SCO (accompanied by a withdrawal of the American (NATO) army from Afghanistan) creates a relatively “peaceful environment” around Afghanistan. Further resolution of the Afghan conflict will depend on this authoritative organization. The SCO can initiate the convocation of an International Conference on Post-Conflict Development and Reconstruction of Afghanistan.

3) Regional economic integration

The gradual peaceful (economic) entry of India into post-Soviet Central Asia will also lead to a softening of the tough competition in the strategic “Russia-China-USA” triangle, and will contribute to its transformation into a stable “Russia-China-India-USA” quadrate. The Central Asian region, which does not have a direct access to the seas, will receive a convenient access to world ports due to the Iranian-Indian efforts to create modern road infrastructures from the harbors of the Indian Ocean.

India is starting its own game with a "knight's move" which will lead to a fundamental change of the strategic configuration in Central Asia.

This is the second entrance of India into Central Asia. 2,000 years ago, peaceful Buddhism was born in India and spread through Central Asia to the whole world. In today’s violent and uncertain world, a new humanistic spirit is needed. That will hopefully be the spirit of Gandhi and the “spirit of non-violence".

SEnECA Blog Contribution by Dr. Abdugani Mamadazimov, CSR Zerkalo

“Margiana” – A Journey into Prehistoric Turkmenistan

Posted on

At first, I did not know where Turkmenistan was located and had to look it up.” Herlinde Koelble’s reaction to an inquiry to photograph excavations in Gonur Depe is quite illustrative. As Turkmenistan was proverbial for periphery in Soviet times, the country is still by far the least known and most mysterious of the five independent Central Asian countries. It is not uncommon to know someone who visited Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan or Uzbekistan, but few know someone who travelled through Turkmenistan. As she loves adventures, the renowned German photographer agreed at once to document the excavations and findings at the Bronze Age city of Gonur Depe (“grey hill”) in the historical landscape Margiana in Eastern Turkmenistan.

Not only interest in prehistorical cultures, but also curiosity and longing for adventure are probable reasons for the success of the exhibition “Margiana. A Bronze Age Kingdom in Turkmenistan”. It is the first exhibition in a Western country that covers the “Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex” (BMAC) as the ancient culture is called. The term “Oxus civilisation” is also frequently used, however, it has a broader meaning with regard to the timeframe and the geographical scope (Teufer 2018: 80-81). The exhibition displays prehistoric artefacts and Koelble’s photos of the objects, the excavation site and modern Turkmenistan, which she took during her expedition to the country. Being on display at the Reiss-Engelhorn-Museum in Mannheim until 16 June 2019, the exhibition raises awareness of the little-known and politically isolated country.

When the idea for this exhibition was first presented to the Turkmen government and then to president Saparmurat Niyazov in 2004, he allegedly gave green light. However, after his death in 2006, his successor Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov seemed rather occupied with consolidating his power and installing the cult around his person so that the project advanced only slowly. There were also concerns on the Turkmen side that the exhibits could be damaged or even stolen while displayed in Germany or that the Germans could keep the original artefacts while returning only copies to Turkmenistan. Eventually, Berdymukhammedov agreed that the presentation of Turkmen cultural treasures (of a highly developed culture) would be a good idea and would serve the prestige of the country abroad as well as enhance cultural exchange.

Discovered by Viktor Iwanowitsch Sarianidi in 1972, excavations at Gonur Depe started more than 40 years ago (Wemhoff/Nawroth/Weiss/Wieczorek 2018a: 12). The at least 28 hectares large city of Gonur Depe included a palace, fortifications, irrigation systems and cemeteries with richly decorated graves. The objects found in the city are witness of the outstanding craftmanship of the BMAC and its long-distance trade relations (Luneau 2018) along what should later be known as the Silk Road. The region seems to have been a melting pot with frequent migration as the analysis of skeletons revealed a considerable heterogeneity of the inhabitants of Gonur Depe with regard to their physical anthropological characteristics (Dubova 2018: 112). However, not being of interest for Soviet archaeologists, the knowledge about the BMAC is still very limited. E.g. it is unclear how such a sophisticated culture – much more advanced than societies in Europe at that time – developed, flourished at Gonur Depe from 2,800 until 1,800/1,500 B.C. and then vanished.

The limited knowledge about the prehistoric society is reflected in the “Margiana” exhibition, which currently tours in Germany. The presented variety of technologically advanced consumer goods and delicate objets d’art testifies to an outstanding craftmanship. However, the exhibition struggles to put the accumulated objects into a broader context. The purpose of some findings is still unclear (Wemhoff/Nawroth/Weiss/Wieczorek 2018b: 12), degrading them to objects whose timeless beauty can be admired, but not understood. Despite some insights, the exhibition also lacks a broader understanding how the people at Gonur Depe lived together. Displaying different categories of findings, the exhibition spotlights separated aspects of their life. However, it fails to bring these aspects into a coherent understanding of the BMAC.
Of course, such criticism from a social science perspective is somewhat unfair as it is not the curator’s fault that research on BMAC will have to continue for some decades until another exhibition can provide the broader understanding of the Bronze Age culture by putting the objects into context. At least the Turkmen government seems to have an interest in supporting research. BMAC has moved from the periphery of Soviet archaeological interest to a higher position on the Turkmen (national) agenda of historical research. The pioneering work of the decade-long planning of the “Margiana” exhibition was also an exercise of mutual trust-building with Turkmen authorities on which future cultural joint ventures can – hopefully – build.

As the findings themselves are the centrepiece and strength of the “Margiana” exhibition, it was an excellent choice to have Herlinde Koelble on board for documenting them in the exhibition and the catalogue. While her pictures of the excavation site and its surroundings are solid craftwork, she shows real mastery when photographing the objects. Especially the figurines seem alive in here photos (Wemhoff/Nawroth/Weiss/Wieczorek 2018b: 140). She is first and foremost a portrait photographer as can be seen in her seminal work “Spuren der Macht” (Koelble 2010). Her close-ups of some objects reveal the artistry of the Bronze Age craftsmen in a way which would otherwise remain invisible for the visitors in the showrooms.

The “Margiana” exhibition is not only groundbreaking in combining archaeological findings and modern photography, but also in bringing isolated Turkmenistan closer to Germany and Europe. A task which the upcoming SEnECA Photo Exhibition on Central Asia at Bozar in Brussels on 4-5 April 2019 will continue.

SEnECA Blog Contribution by Julian Plottka and Yvonne Braun, IEP

The Soviet Heritage in Central Asia

Posted on

In the European public view, the five Central Asian states Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are perceived as post-Soviet countries still struggling to manage their economic and political transition – as many former Eastern Bloc countries did and still do.

Certainly, besides cultural and historical aspects, the common Soviet past is one of the constituent elements of Central Asia as a region today. However, this attribute seems to be mostly assigned by others and not by Central Asian countries themselves. But what does the Soviet heritage mean for the five countries concerned? How have Central Asians experienced the times when they were part of the USSR, and how is that era perceived now? Is the Soviet heritage an obstacle for today’s development or a fruitful ground- in terms of regional integration for instance? These questions are interesting to me not only as a European ‘post-Eastern Bloc citizen’, but also – in the light of a ‘new regionalism’ in Central Asia – to me as a researcher.

It is no secret that for Central Asia the Soviet rule mainly meant communist rule with Moscow as its political centre, a centrally planned economy with an artificial and high interdependence within the different entities of the USSR. Further, Soviet rule is associated with an industrialisation that pushed back traditional and nomadic life in many parts of the region, a skewing of their ethnic mixture through Stalin’s ‘national delimitation’ that was characterized by significant national migration and resettlements, a ‘russification’ and suppression of local languages and cultures.

After their independence in 1991, Central Asian countries saw territorial, political and ethnic conflicts resurge that had been kept down during the Soviet rule. Examples of such conflicts are especially the civil war in Tajikistan 1991-1997, unrest in Andijan/Uzbekistan 2005, and the revolution in Kyrgyzstan in 2010. Also, the disputes over water resources rekindled after the Soviet Union fragmented into separate national entities which first of all focused on their own further development. Prominent examples are the controversies over the Aral Sea located in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, or the Rogun dam project of Tajikistan that provoked opposition of neighbouring Uzbekistan and, to a minor extent, Kazakhstan. After Uzbekistan’s recent “regionalist turn”, many see a chance to further pacify the region. One might consider at least the positive experiences of technical and economic cooperation during the Soviet period as a starting point after years of non-cooperation and regional disintegration of the post-Soviet period.

Today, the Soviet past widely seems to be perceived as negative, focusing on the lack of freedoms and the suppression of the local peoples. However, being confronted with the economic and social constraints of a globalised economy, the citizens of Central Asian countries experience a nostalgic desire for certain aspects of Soviet life such as stability, the quality of human relations, and social security. They also experience the desire for the feeling of pride that stands in sharp contrast to the economic and political decline of their countries’ economies after independence that had shaped the past quarter-century.

Undoubtedly, the issue of Central Asia’s Soviet past cannot be deliberated without touching upon Russia’s role in the region then and now. The Soviet past is an important aspect of Russia’s Eurasian integration ambitions via the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). From a Russian perspective, nostalgic desires are probably a helpful tool to advance this kind of integration. Insofar, Central Asian states should be aware of the manipulability of collective memory, and reflect about how to perceive and present the Soviet stage of their national histories. A conscious commemorative culture would also contribute to reviewing their relations with Russia, a process that is still hampered by the unsettled view on the past.

Studying the Soviet past and issues of nostalgia is often regarded as being oriented towards the past and as not yielding new incentives for the future. The elderly people’s nostalgia about the past is comprehensible, but seldom constructive. Nevertheless, as Central Asia is still struggling with its identity, political orientation, relationship with its neighbours and in particular its relation to Russia, it seems crucial that the region’s countries come to terms with their past in order to be able to create their future.

SEnECA Blog Contribution by Dr. Susann Heinecke, CIFE

High Pace of Reforms in the Educational Sector in Turkmenistan

Posted on

Everyone is familiar with the popular statement that “Youth is our future”, but if we continue this statement, the continuation would sound something like this: “and well-educated youth is one of the necessary conditions for this future to be prosperous, successful and creative”. Perhaps, this conviction has become the basis for the fundamental reforms in the educational sector that have taken place in Turkmenistan over the past decade.

Turkmenistan inherited a well-coordinated system of personnel training from the Soviet Union, which gave the world outstanding scientists and cultural figures. There was a state system that guaranteed compulsory secondary education and equal access to free higher education both in educational institutions of Turkmenistan and in higher educational institutions of other republics.

Unfortunately, the reforms carried out in the educational sector in the period after the collapse of the USSR until 2008 had a negative impact on the quality of training and seemed to have thrown off the possibility of transition to the international education system for a long time. The period of secondary school education was reduced to 9 years, the number of students in higher educational institutions had been reduced by almost 75 per cent, all correspondence and evening classes had been closed from 1995 and from May 2001 diplomas obtained outside the country had been invalidated in Turkmenistan. From 2002 free higher education was cancelled. A number of special educational institutions such as specialized technical vocational schools and technical colleges were also abolished. In 1993, the Academy of Sciences and a number of research institutes were abolished.

Realizing that in modern conditions the successful development of any state in the world economy as a whole is determined primarily by the level of development of education and science, where an important factor is the effective formation and implementation of the intellectual potential of society, Turkmenistan has been making consistent efforts to modernize and strengthen the educational system since 2008. The 10-year secondary education has been returned giving the young generation an opportunity to get an education not only in our country, but also abroad. Moreover, the progressive reforms have advanced even further: according to the decree of the head of state “About improvement of the educational system in Turkmenistan” the transition to the 12-year school education has been carried out since 2013.

Next to a number of improvements in pre-school and school education, the government of Turkmenistan pays considerable attention to reforms in the field of higher and secondary vocational education. Among newly established educational institutions (the complex of well-equipped buildings) are: International Oil and Gas University (1), the International University of Humanities and Development (2), the Naval Institute of the Ministry of defense (3), the Ashgabat pedagogical school named after Aman Kekilov (4).

In 2015, more than 15 thousand boys and girls became students. In comparison with 2014, the reception has been increased by 896 student places. In the same year, the number of secondary vocational schools increased by 56% compared to 2011. Currently, Turkmenistan youth is provided with the opportunity to obtain higher professional education in 24 higher educational institutions within the country. An innovative and promising approach was the introduction of an intensive foreign language course in the first year of study in some higher educational institutions of Turkmenistan, which made it possible to invite leading world experts to give thematic lectures covering the relevance of the issues studied to the context of the regional and global agenda.

“Language days” dedicated to the Day of Europe at the International Humanitarian University became a good tradition. The purpose of this format is to increase the interest of Turkmen students in the study of German, Greek, Lithuanian, Slovak, French, Romanian, Spanish, Italian languages. Along with Turkmen teachers, foreign specialists – native speakers of these languages – conduct introductory classes. Mini-presentations in the framework of these classes introduce students to the history, culture and traditions of the countries of the languages studied. The co-organizers of the “European week” program in the higher educational institutions of Turkmenistan are the diplomatic missions of European countries.

The openness of Turkmenistan to the International constructive cooperation has contributed to the fact that the geography of foreign educational institutions is expanding every year, where Turkmen youth goes for knowledge to be gained under the intergovernmental agreements. Over the years, thousands of Turkmen boys and girls have become holders of student cards of prestigious universities in Russia, Belarus, China, Malaysia, Azerbaijan, Romania, Turkey, Croatia and other countries. The students-and lectors exchange programs are successfully implemented in the framework of international educational programs like TEMPUS-TACIS and others. Some study programs have been organized by international organizations such as UNICEF, UNFPA, UNDP and UNESCO. Cooperation with the programs the Erasmus-Mundus Educational program, FLEX USA, IREX, TEA etc. has been expanded.

Thus, the pace and trends of educational reforms open up new opportunities for further comprehensive development as well as give hope for a prosperous, successful and creative future.

SEnECA Blog Contribution by Guljamal Nurmuhamedova, Ynanch-Vepa

Why teaching and researching the EU in Central Asia?

Posted on

As long as the integration process in Europe is in the centre of public attention, the interest of scholars towards this phenomenon is growing in the world. In the meantime, academic courses and researches focusing on that subject have lately been acquiring wider acceptance in Central Asia.

When I was a student at the Sophia-Antipolis University in France in 1998–2000, I got interested in the topic of European integration. The way the European nations lived as one united family and simplified the process of the movement of goods, work forces, services and capital across Europe had fascinated me since. I had become assured that the advancement of Europe owed much to the integration of European countries. Thus, I have started to study the historical, political, economic and legal background of the EU integration and comparing it with other examples of regional integration. Until today, my teaching and research activities have been connected with the EU Law and European Integration Studies.

Upon returning to Uzbekistan after the completion of my Master’s degree in France, where I was preliminary specialized in European Union Law, I have been trying to implement my knowledge acquired in Europe through teaching, lecturing, researching and disseminating related information.

Starting from 2005, a course “Basic European Union Law” has been introduced into the academic curriculum of the University of World Economy and Diplomacy (UWED) in Tashkent. As a next step, a new course in “Advanced EU Law” (Substantive EU law) for Master’s students of the International Law Department of UWED and Tashkent State Institute of Law has respectively been implemented within the Jean Monnet teaching module project “Teaching the EU Law” in 2011-2014.

At the moment, the grant project “Jean Monnet Chair in EU Law and Politics” is being implemented which aims at continuing the existing “Basic EU Law” course for Bachelor`s students and to implement the new interdisciplinary “EU Law and Politics” course for graduate students of the International Law Department and the International Relations Department.

These developments will enable me to synchronize similar subjects and courses to serve one common goal. The most important benefit, however, is that the project can be considered as the first stage of the institutionalization of European Studies in Uzbekistan. Eventually, it will lead to the establishment of the Center for European Studies and later to the establishment of the Institute for European Studies in Central Asia.

Besides teaching, I have been conducting research on EU studies in the past years and have been greatly supported and supervised by my colleagues. As an outcome of these research activities, about 80 articles on this subject have been published and a number of European institutions and research centres have been visited. In my personal experience, the most crucial moment was to receive a visiting research scholarship in 2013 during which I got familiar with original manuscripts of the founding fathers of Europe like Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman and others in the archives of the Foundation Jean Monnet for Europe affiliated to the University of Lausanne (Switzerland).

Why teaching and researching the EU in Central Asia? One might wonder whether it is useful to teach EU law in Uzbekistan. Certainly, it is useful for two main reasons. First of all, those who will be involved in their professional career with EU member states, should be familiar with the rules of the European Single Market and not only rules on relationships with third countries, but also the decision-making processes within the EU. Only if you understand the decision-making processes on the higher level, you can influence final decisions that are relevant for you.

Secondly, the EU is not only one of the economically most advanced regions in the world and an extremely important trading partner, but is also a historically unique model for the integration of national economies into a single market based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The overall result has been peace and wellbeing of the people in the Union for many decades. Being the most sophisticated regional integration system, the EU offers rich experience in developing from a customs union to a political union. Studying this experience will be helpful to find out adequate forms of institutional cooperation in Central Asia.

That is why the importance of the EU Studies cannot be overestimated within as well as outside the European Union. Different aspects of EU Studies should be studied everywhere.

Teaching and researching the EU, however, requires an adequate methodology and expertise taking into consideration local and regional particularities. Moreover, it requires communication and cooperation among teachers and researchers from within and outside the EU. It is to be highly welcomed that the SEnECA project provides an important contribution to the promotion of EU studies in Central Asia.

SEnECA Blog Contribution by Jean Monnet Chair, Dr. Khaydarali Yunusov and SEnECA team members from the University of World Economy and Diplomacy (UWED)

Unknown Central Asia

Posted on

Many people seem to be intrigued when I mention that I am involved in SEnECA (“Strengthening and Energizing EU – Central Asia relations”), a Horizon 2020 project that aims to better connect the EU and Central Asia. “What does Central Asia mean?” is the usual reaction. Many countries are considered as Central Asian: Mongolia, Iran, Turkey, but few people think of the five countries that the project actually targets, namely Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Having previously mainly worked on Europe and its immediate neighbours, I have also had until very recently only limited knowledge of the region.

Central Asia is indeed not on the radar of the European public. Of course, the exceptions are adventurous travelers who tell of beautiful breathtaking scenery, delicious food and kind and hospitable inhabitants upon their return.

Similarly, when conducting our Stakeholder Analysis in the framework of SEnECA, which entails looking for stakeholders who engage in the field of EU-Central Asia relations, we found that there are very few people who work exclusively on Central Asia. Central Asia usually falls under broader terms such as Eurasia, Asia and so on.

That is what SEnECA wants to change. We want to bring Central Asia closer to Europe by connecting not only experts on the topic, but also citizens who, like me, have previously rarely engaged with Central Asia. One of SEnECA’s objectives is in fact to raise awareness for the importance of Central Asia for Europe in the wider public by bringing the region closer to the citizens of the EU. This also means showing why the region is important in the daily life of a European citizen: One example is that there is a sizeable diaspora from Central Asia living in Europe. Also, Central Asia will become a main connectivity hub between Europe and Asia in the future due to China’s ‘One Belt, on Road’ initiative. Finally, preserving stability in the Central Asia region will also have an effect on the everyday life of Europeans.

How to better help citizens familiarise with Central Asia than exhibiting photos of the region? In spring 2019, SEnECA will organise a two-day free photo exhibition in Brussels to show the beauty, culture and traditions of these countries, to portrait the daily lives of their inhabitants and to stimulate reflection on the differences and the similarities between Europe and Central Asia. The exhibition targets citizens and the wider public as well as professionals from the field. The idea behind the exhibition is also to present the academic papers that the project produces in a format that is easily digestible for citizens without prior expertise in the field of social sciences.

Within SEnECA, we will do our best to make Central Asia more known in Europe and to connect Europeans and Central Asians better. For me personally, this objective has already been achieved through my involvement in the project. I have especially enjoyed working with our Central Asian partners and hearing stories about Central Asia from them directly. What has surprised me the most while working on the topic of Central Asia is that the region will soon gain more importance by become the connecting piece for both China’s and the EU’s connectivity strategy. I am certainly looking forward to continuing working with our Central Asian and European partners for the success of SEnECA.

SEnECA Blog Contribution by Julia Krebs from the Trans European Policy Studies Association

Europe’s Security Stake in Central Asia

Posted on

The European Union is traditionally seen as a non-security focused actor. Given member state capitals’ preference to lead on national security and defence, there is a tendency to see the EU solely through the lens of non-security and to focus instead on economic questions when engaging with Brussels. Yet, this view misses a vast range of activity which is already going on as well as the fact that some key European security questions are intimately tied to Central Asia. Broadly speaking, these key issues fall into three categories: geopolitics, terrorism and regional security. One key consideration from a European policy perspective is to think about how to focus on these issues in a more coherent way to enhance the other strands of the EU-Central Asia relationship.

To start with geopolitics – Central Asia is a region where clichés of the ‘Great Games’ abound: from Mackinder’s often repeated comments about the region being the ‘pivot of Eurasia’ to the fact that four of Eurasia’s great powers are located in its immediate proximity (China, Russia, India and Iran). These are all powers with which the EU has complicated relationships (although it is important to note that the relationship with India is nowhere near as adversarial as the other relationships), and therefore present an opportunity for joint thinking about how to manage concerns that might emanate from these great powers.  The cooperation can be thought in terms of regional influence, regional security activity or in terms of global postures more generally. Understanding Central Asian perspectives on the great powers might help enrich European responses to their activities regionally as well as globally. Both sides might benefit from sharing perspectives and ideas about what these powers are doing as well as develop strategies to manage their activity.

Turning to terrorism: an observable reality of the past couple of years has been the growing number of Central Asians involved in terrorist activity in the West. Be this on the ground in Syria or in Iraq where the Turkestan Islamic Party (an Uighur group more traditionally associated with China which has increasingly broadened out to encompass the wider Central Asian region) has become the last non-Levantine group standing on the battlefield and has increasingly featured Europeans and Central Asians fighting amongst its ranks.

Outside the region or the battlefield in Syria and Iraq, Central Asians have been involved in terrorist attacks around the world: incidents in New York, Stockholm, Istanbul and Saint Petersburg all involved Central Asian perpetrators. In each of these cases, it is important to note that the respective individual’s links to Central Asian militancy were sometimes quite tenuous (for example, the New York attacker had lived in the United States for seven years prior to launching his attack and the Saint Petersburg attacker was an Uzbek-Kyrgyz who had lived in Russia for years). However, in the other two cases there was clear evidence of links to Central Asian networks. And while this may not sound surprising, it is in fact relatively new to see Central Asians involved in the global jihadist terrorist community in such a prominent way.

Finally, the question of regional security is mostly one about Afghanistan. A country into which many European powers and the EU have poured money, blood and effort for many years still has tremendous problems which do not appear to be receding. This is something of which Central Asians need little reminder. The ultimate answer to Afghanistan’s long-term stability is most likely to come from the region – something that Western powers have sought to instigate, but which has not materialized in the way they were hoping. Instead, there has been a sense of a piecemeal response, which has taken place in an ad hoc fashion. With the transformation currently underway across the region, there is an opportunity for the region’s links and approaches to Afghanistan to change substantially. There have already been some efforts by Central Asia to connect with Europe on this difficult question. For example, Tashkent invited the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, Frederica Mogherini, as a keynote speaker at the important Samarqand Security conference in 2017 and there was a renewed willingness to regionally discuss Afghanistan and cooperative efforts. The EU-Central Asia High Level Political and Security Dialogue conducted recently included Afghanistan for the first time and the EU has made efforts to incorporate Kabul into its Central Asian framework.

Both the EU and Central Asia still face difficulties in defining their policy interests in Afghanistan. The powers in Central Asia remain deeply concerned with the potential for security threats of different sorts emanating from Afghanistan. This is clearly something shared with Europe that is concerned about Afghanistan’s regional impact (both to Central and South Asia) as well as about the danger of terrorists, narcotics or refugees coming to Europe. Working together makes absolute sense in order to manage and mitigate these threats and to help Afghanistan onto a path of greater stability.

These three security issues are of interest to the EU as well as to Central Asian powers. Together, these two regions could form the basis for a more sustained and substantial security dialogue through which European powers could use their contacts and try to affect Central Asian leaders in their approach to manage these problems at home. When thinking of problems around terrorism and violent extremism in particular, there is considerable capacity for learning and exchange of ideas which could have a positive effect on both sides.

Europe is not traditionally seen as a hard power security actor. This characterization is somewhat unfair considering the volume of security-related work that the EU does. Within the Central Asian context, the work already done can become a useful foundation for a more serious and sustained bilateral relationship, which would help both powers to deal with some key regional security concerns as well as with some of the larger global security trends.

SEnECA Blog Contribution by Raffaello Pantucci from the Royal United Services Institute

The “New Silk Road” and Kyrgyzstan: problems and perspectives

Posted on

The Great Silk Road, the route connecting the East and the West since the Middle Ages, is restoring back to life. Today, the idea of reviving the Great Silk Road is fully embodied in the ambitious Chinese initiative “One Belt – One Road” (OBOR), which shall better connect countries located between China and Europe. The project is not purely economic, but has also a geopolitical side since it pursues Chinese foreign interests. However, economic and trade relations are given a strong emphasis within the project. The idea of OBOR is very attractive for Central Asian countries as it provides them with the opportunity to become an important hub in the international transit between the Europe and Eastern Asia. Currently, the integration of the landlocked region into the global economy is hampered by the lack of sea connections. Therefore, the development of communication channels is very important for the further advancement of economic and trade relations both among Central Asian countries and with neighbouring regions.

For a small landlocked country like Kyrgyzstan without any significant mineral resources and a huge external debt, the OBOR initiative looks like as a ‘lifebuoy’ and a great opportunity for the country’s development. Through active involvement in the project, Kyrgyzstan can receive new perspectives for the development of the economic, political, cultural, humanitarian relations with all participating countries. This is very important for Kyrgyzstan since it is searching for its place in the global community as a country which is attractive for establishing international organizations, hosting international and regional forums, as well as serving as a regional educational and cultural center.

Prior to China, a similar idea has already been implemented by the European Union under the TRACECA programme with the aim to create an international transport corridor from Europe through the Black Sea, the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea with access to Central Asian countries. The programme has buildt trans-Eurasian connections and developed communication channels among the above mentioned regions, but it did not cover the whole Great Silk Road. China has initiated its project with larger investments and more global coverage.
However, there are also some downsides to OBOR. First, China will significantly strengthen its geopolitical domination over Central Asia. Second, the fact that China is the largest creditor of Kyrgyzstan will exclude equal partnership. Third, Chinese immigration is a great problem not only in Kyrgyzstan, but in all Central Asian countries. There is no simple answer to the above mentioned challenges at the moment and only time will show how they can be solved by all parties.
At the same time, advantages from the participation in the project outweigh possible challenges for Kyrgyzstan. The development of transport routes will allow not only Kyrgyzstan, but all countries of the region to intensify trade relations in the future. The implementation of the project can lead to new investments, the development of new technologies, cultural exchange, intensified relations creating more stability, security and multilateral cooperation, and gradually, turning the Great Silk Road region into a new axis in the global economy and politics.

SEnECA Blog Contribution by Nazira Momosheva from Kyrgyz National University

Strengthening the EU-Kazakh Relations: from Capacity to Feasibility

Posted on

The European Union is one of the main economic and foreign policy partners of Kazakhstan. The Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev always emphasizes the strategic significance of the EU in his annual addresses to the nation of Kazakhstan. Deep interaction with the European countries helps to promote democratic reforms, improve the quality of life, attract investments and new technologies as well as improve legislation (including rule of law) and modernize the system of public administration in accordance with existing standards.

The interaction of Kazakhstan with European countries is developing both bilaterally and multilaterally, including the EU supranational structures. Key priority areas for EU cooperation with Kazakhstan include:

(1) Political dialogue. The established political dialogue forms a strong basis for further development of bilateral relations. Kazakhstan actively interacts with key European institutions, such as the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Europe as well as with related institutions such as the European Cultural Convention and the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, which Astana recently joined. Among key issues of bilateral cooperation remain the facilitation of the visa regime and the possibility of the Kazakh airlines to fly to European countries.

(2) Energy and natural resources. Dialogue on energy issues is one of the key mutually beneficial areas of the Kazakh-European cooperation. Whereas Kazakhstan is the main supplier of Caspian oil and gas resources to Europe, the European Union is the largest trading partner of Kazakhstan. 80 percent of the Kazakhstan resources (oil and gas) are exported to the EU. Diversification of export routes for energy resources are of mutual interest, both for Kazakhstan and for the European Union. The interests of the EU are mainly focused on the Southern route for gas supplies to Europe.

(3) Culture and humanitarian cooperation. There is an annual dialogue on human rights with state bodies of Kazakhstan, regular meetings with NGOs and seminars with the participation of civil society of the EU and Kazakhstan. At this stage, priority areas include local government and the reform of the judicial system, which in turn will promote social cohesion, democratic development and respect for human rights. Cooperation in science and education plays a fundamental role in bilateral relations. Cooperation between the universities, vocational education and the adhering to international educational standards within the Kazakh education system are the key areas of cooperation between the EU and Kazakhstan.

2018 marks the 25th anniversary of the diplomatic relations between Kazakhstan and the EU. Therefore, the country and the people would like the new Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement to significantly enhance bilateral relations in many areas including regional cooperation in Central Asia. There is much potential in the EU involvement in Kazakhstan and the region. However, it is high time to make it more feasible and public. It is necessary to implement those ambitious economic and political commitments into something real that people of the region can feel.

For Kazakhstan, the EU support in the international arena is very important. Many European countries assess Kazakhstan’s success and achievements quite positively. Kazakhstan would like to see a more active and ambitious European Union in Central Asia in many spheres. Whereas geopolitical context is obviously lacking in bilateral relations, the pragmatic approach makes it easier to strengthen the EU presence and influence in the region and to balance Chinese and Russian growing interests in Central Asia, among other challenges.

In addition, the European soft power has great potential and will certainly receive support in the region in the long run. At the local level, it will be interesting to build people-to-people relations in the two regions, so that citizens from the EU, Kazakhstan and Central Asia can learn about each other, share ideas and exchange the views on many common concerns.

SEnECA Blog Contribution by Daria Larionova from the Central Asia Institute for Strategic Studies

The Art of (dis-)integration

Posted on

The Central Asian countries’ participation in the Eurasian integration promoted by Russia under the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) is indispensable for the full success of this project. The countries of the region, however, carry out diverse foreign policies and depend – to various extents – on good relations with Russia. Therefore, only some of them are interested in integration within the EEU. Kazakhstan is a founding member of this organization, Kyrgyzstan joined shortly after its founding, and Tajikistan is negotiating a membership. At the same time, Uzbekistan, with its multi-vector foreign policy, and Turkmenistan, maintaining neutral status, are skeptical about the EEU, perceiving it as an instrument of Russian influence – a reluctance that prevents Russia from fully realizing the post-Soviet reintegration in the region.

The focus of the EEU is economic integration. Despite the fact that the EEU’s competences and goals are limited to economic issues, it is de facto an instrument of achieving Russia’s geopolitical goals. The Central Asian states are a key link in the reintegration of the former Soviet Union and the implementation of the “Great Eurasia project” by Russia. For the EEU and Russia it is a priority issue not to allow the region’s states to permanently rally with other superpowers, and to balance the growing role of China in this region. Apart from its economic dysfunction, Russia’s unspecified intentions towards those players who are fearing growing Russian political influence remain a key obstacle to the EEU’s success.

Regarding its main field of activity – economic integration –, the EEU did not increase its influence on the global economy, mainly as a result of the economic crisis in Russia after 2014, affecting strongly the Central Asian states. The standard of living is not improving due to reduced transfers from economic migrants working in Russia, the weakening of local currencies, and restrictions on conducting cross-border trade. Considering the ongoing economic stagnation, the EEU has shown that it does not have adequate instruments to effectively assist its member states. Russian infrastructural projects in Central Asia have largely not reached the stage of implementation as Chinese investments do.

A crucial factor that effectively limits the EEU’s potential in Central Asia is China’s active economic policy covering a wide range of sectors like infrastructure, energy, finance, the aerospace industry, telecommunication and others. Russia tries to conceal this situation by claiming a synergistic relationship of its Eurasian integration and the Chinese OBOR initiative. But in fact it is only an attempt to mask the growing disparity between China and Russia in creating instruments of influence, not a real idea of common vision for this region.

In such a shaped regional environment the EU’s role could be to present itself as an attractive alternative partner, offering real cooperation in such fields as economy, technology, innovations, education, social services, and even security and counter-terrorism. Despite the limitations of the EU activities’ effectiveness in the region, it’s advantage over Russia is the fact that cooperation with the EU does not entail increased geopolitical pressure and the need for difficult political compromises. The better the EU demonstrates its idea of real partnership, cooperation and support, the more important it will become in this part of the world, and the more Russia’s influence will be reduced. That’s why the SEnECA project is a really needed initiative in building self-reliance and openness in EU – Central Asia relations.

SEnECA Blog Contribution by Arkadiusz Legieć from WiseEuropa