laumulin_TsA_v_zarubezhnoy_politologii

Kazakhstan is one of the most loyal and reliable Russia’s partners in the postSovietexpanse;itisinvolvedinalltheintegrationprocesses.Ontheotherhand, Astana’spoliciesdemonstratethatithasitsownnationalinterests,itsownideas about the international developments, and its own foreign policy priorities.

In recent years Uzbekistan’s political and economic situation has changed radically even though Islam Karimov remains its president. The country’s leaders have started the very much needed financial and economic reforms; the national currency has reached the convertibility stage; and market mechanisms areoperatinginthecountryside.Industryandagriculturehaveridthemselvesof the extremes, and the government has moved further away from interfering in economicprocesses.AthomePresidentKarimovhasfinallyreducedthepressure of the clans and regional and departmental groups on central power. The main elite groups have reached a consensus and achieved a balance, albeit shaky. Social unrest was partly quenched and the threat of destabilization removed, while the Islamist movement was driven underground.

Likewise,therepublic’sinternationalsituationhaschangedtoagreatextent: Tashkent abandoned its one-sided orientation toward the West to move back to post-Soviet integration. This improved relations with Russia: today Tashkent depends much more on Moscow and Beijing. Its foreign policy revision took Tashkent farther than intended: its relations with the West are worse than at any other period, while the country has found itself in what can be described as international semi-isolation. At the same time the rapport between Russia and Uzbekistan that goes back to 2004 cannot be described as completely reliable: Uzbek foreign policy is known for its instability. In the context of bad, or very bad,relationswiththeWestTashkentisactivelydevelopingmulti-sided(mainly economic) cooperation with China. The republic, in fact, is developing into China’s key CentralAsian trade, economic, and political partner.

Since2004TashkenthasbeendevelopingitsrelationswiththeSovietsuccessorstatesinlinewithitsorientationtowardRussia.Theimportanceofitscontactswith China,Kyrgyzstan,Kazakhstan,andespeciallyTurkmenistan(fromwhichgaswill be moved across Uzbekistan) cannot be overestimated; on top of this Uzbekistan iscampaigningtobecomethetransitstateforthemainrailwaysandhighwaysthat willconnectChinaandtheMiddleEast.TheAndijanriot,whichTashkentaccused Bishkekofindirectlyinstigating,causedalotofstrainintherelationsbetweenthe twocountries;later,in2006,manyoftheformercontradictionswereremoved.This is the context in which Uzbekistan’s post-Western foreign policy is taking shape determined,firstandforemost,bytheshortageofdomesticresourcesandlimited maneuverability on the international scene. Kazakhstan, in turn, wants domestic stability in Uzbekistan more than anything else; much depends on whether the regime change in Uzbekistan will be smooth.

431

Лаумулин М.Т.

Центральная Азия в зарубежной политологии и мировой геополитике

KyrgyzstanispresentinpracticallyalltheCentralAsianintegrationprojects -CSTO,EurAsEC,CAEC,andSCO.Inrecentyearsitsleaders,whointhepast fewyearshavebeenpreservingstrategiccooperationandpartnershipwithRussia, China,andtheU.S.astheirpriorities,havebeenconcentratingonstrengthening relations within the SCO and CSTO. Relations with the United States, the third strategic partner, are clouded by the clash of financial advantages with respect to the continued presence ofAmerican troops in the republic and Washington’s mountingdesiretoexportdemocracyandsupporttheopposition.Inrecentyears Bishkekhasdisplayedaninterestinallsortsoftransportationandcommunication projects designed to connect Central Asia with the outside world; Kyrgyzstan wants to be included in all of them as a transit country. It would also like to see CentralAsia as a single economic expanse.

The dramatic events triggered by the sudden death of Saparmurad Niyazov and G.Berdymukhammedov’s advent to power stirred up intrigues around Ashghabad: the West is luring Turkmenistan into alternative gas projects while Russia is fighting for its continued monopoly on the transportation of Turkmen gas to the foreign markets. The new leaders of Turkmenistan with their ideas about the country’s foreign policies boldly moved onto the international arena. President Berdymukhammedov has accepted the rules of the game and feels at homeonthegeopoliticalscene,especiallywheretheCaspianissueisconcerned: so far he has been successfully balancing among Russia, the West, China, and Iran. He is lavishing promises right and left and seems to be ready to join any of the gas pipeline projects even though this is very much at variance with the republic’s gas reserves. Meanwhile Turkmenistan is steadily opening up to the world.

TheWest,inturn,istryingtoelbowRussiaoutofTurkmenistan,potentially the best chance of delivering Europe and pro-Western CIS republics from their dependenceonRussiangas.Today,Russia’spolicyinrelationtoTurkmenistanis freefromthedesiretoinvitethecountryintotheSCOoranyotherCISstructures. Moscow wants to remain in control over its gas policies: the agreements of Turkmenbashi’s time should remain in force while Gazprom should retain its monopoly on the export of Turkmenian energy resources. This makes China, which wants Turkmen gas for itself, Russia’s rival, which threatens its gas interests. The expert community is of the opinion that Ashghabad’s chances withinNabuccoarepreferable.TheprojectexpectedtomovegasfromIranand otherCaspianstatestoSouthern,Central,andWesternEurope.Thenewpipeline routeswillbedeterminednotonlybyinternationalcompetitionovertheoiland gas resources of Turkmenistan but also by the domestic balance of forces.

The weak economy, which suffered a lot in the civil war, the undeveloped production forces, and the geographic location, which can hardly be described

432

as favorable, do not prevent Tajikistan from being involved in nearly all the integrationstructures(CSTO,EurAsEC,CACEandSCO).Recentlythecountry has been seeking new foreign policy partners more actively than before (while strengtheningitstraditionalrelationswithRussia).Thenewforeignpolicytrends were born through a great deal of dissatisfaction with the far from successful experience of cooperation with Russia’s big business. Today, Iran is building up its influence in the republic without much ado and is involved in all sorts of economic projects; India and China are also present. Russia’s much advertised intention to regain control over the Soviet aluminum giants fell through or, at best,waspostponed.Thesituationintherepublicwhereeconomicandpolitical problemsareintertwinedisfarfromsimple,howeverDushanbeandTehranhave moved closer in many respects. Iran is gradually moving to the fore as one of the key foreign investors and a potential user of local raw materials. In the near future Tajikistan will still need energy, transport, and communication projects; and it will have to curb the large-scale migration of manpower.

Being a sovereign state for 18 years, Kazakhstan enters the foreign affairs system with a developed foreign policy and certain foreign policy principles and concepts. In the early 1990s, the government projected the concept of the Eurasian Bridge, showing that Kazakhstan belongs both to Europe and Asia with respect to geography, culture, history, and civilization. Later on, in the late 1990s, the concept transformed into the so-called principle of multi-vector diplomacy aiming to introduce foreign policy in the directions important to KazakhstansuchastheCIS,CentralAsia,EastAsia,Europe,theIslamicWorld, the Pacific Region, industrialized countries, etc. Kazakhstan’s relations with Russia, China, the Central Asian countries, the USA, and the European Union are undoubtedly strategic.

Kazakhstan today is considered to be the most successful economy of the countries of the CIS. The process of economic transformations in Kazakhstan isagraphicexampleofthedifficultiesthathavetobeovercomeonthewaytoa market economy, even for new independent states with the richest of resources. The country’s leaders inherited a situation that gave real grounds for optimism. The economy was diversfied in nature and a reasonably well-developed processing industry and agricultural sector presented potential for a smooth transitiontoindependence,bysatisfyingthematerialrequestsofthepopulation to an extent that would preserve political stability.

In 2010 Astana should use its OSCE chairmanship to add weight to its international and foreign policy standing for the sake of CentralAsian security. In its relations with the European Union Kazakhstan should take into account that the EU might lose its position as the main economic center of Eurasia; the EU countries are developing into magnets of migration that brings about deep-

433

Лаумулин М.Т.

Центральная Азия в зарубежной политологии и мировой геополитике

cuttingchangesintheirsocialmakeupandtheirindustrialstructure.Atthesame time the European Union will depend on Eurasian energy resources for a long time to come. Islamist extremism keeps Uzbekistan on the alert: the republic is forced to tighten its border, customs, and migration regimes - measures that badly hit the Ferghana population.

The years 2007-08 was a time of geopolitical changes for the region, some of which remained latent but completely analyzable.The geo-economic factors and the worldwide financial crisis (a crisis of liquidity and defaults as well as instability in the international financial markets), the rising prices for basic commodities such as energy resources and foodstuffs, the economic growth in Russia,China,andIndia,andtherisingimportanceoftheenergysecurityissue, etc. inevitably affected the situation in CentralAsia.

InAugust 2008 the conflict in South Ossetia complicated the situation and greatly affected Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security. The SCO summit that met late in August 2008 unanimously supported Russia and its actions in the Caucasus. We can expect similar statements from Moscow’s CIS friends at the CIS, EurAsEC, and CSTO summits to be held in the fall of 2008. CentralAsian securitywillundoubtedlybeaffectedbytheworseningrelationsbetweenRussia andtheWest.Thegeopoliticalgamearoundtheregionhasreachedanewphase. Theyear2009,whenAmericareceivedthenewObama’sadministration,would probably dissipate the fog.

434

К библиографии

Завершая настоящий том, мы решили отойти от традиции сопровождения каждого издания обширной библиографией. Вместо этого каждый раздел и каждая глава книги снабжены соответствующей их тематике литературой.

Кроме того, мы рекомендуем обратиться к следующему изданию, увидевшему свет в ходе подготовки и в рамках данного проекта: Лаумулин М.Т., Шайхутдинов М.Е. «Библиографический указатель по Центральной Азии, международным отношениям и геополитике». – Алматы: ИМЭП, 2008. – 320 с.

Напоминаем также, что I-й том настоящего издания содержит подробную зарубежную библиографию по Центральной Азии с 1991 по 2005 гг.

См. также: Лаумулин М.Т. Новейшие исследования Института Центральной Азии и Кавказа в Университете Джонса Хопкинса // Казахстан в глобальных процессах (Алматы, ИМЭП). 2008. № 3. С. 122-129; его же: Обзор новейшей литературы по Центральной Азии // Казахстан-Спектр. 2008.№3.С.96-106;егоже:ПольскиеисследованияпоЦентральнойАзии // Казахстан-Спектр. 2009. № 1. 112-116.

Об авторе

ЛАУМУЛИНМуратТурарович(род.в1959г.),в1976г.закончилРес- публиканскуюфизико-математическуюшколу(РФМШ)вАлма-Ате.С1976 по 1982 гг. учился на специальном отделении исторического факультета КазГУ им. С.М.Кирова (ныне КазНУ им. Аль-Фараби) по специализации иностранный язык и история средних веков. С 1982 по 1985 гг. - преподавательнакафедреиностранныхязыковгуманитарныхфакультетовКазГУ. С 1985 по 1987 гг. - научный сотрудник Института истории, археологии и этнографии АН КазССР. В 1987 г. М.Т.Лаумулин поступил в аспирантуру приИнститутеисторииСССРАНСССРвМоскве,в1990г.защитилкандидатскую диссертацию по западной историографии истории Казахстана.

С1990 по 1993 гг. - старший научный сотрудник Института истории

иэтнологии НАН РК, с 1992 по 1997 гг. - старший научный сотрудник Института Востоковедения НАН РК, с 1992 по 1997 гг. (с перерывами) - ведущийнаучныйсотрудник,замдиректора,гнсКазахстанскогоинститута стратегических исследований при Президенте Республики Казахстан.

С1990 по 1997 гг. М.Т.Лаумулин читал специальные курсы по зарубежной историографии Центральной Азии, международным отношениям

ивнешнейполитикеРеспубликиКазахстан,политологииидипломатиина

435

Лаумулин М.Т.

Центральная Азия в зарубежной политологии и мировой геополитике

международных отделениях КазГНУ и Университета «Кайнар». С 1998 г. по 2002 г. М.Т.Лаумулин на дипломатической работе в Германии.

С 1993 по 1994 гг. М.Т.Лаумулин работал в Министерстве иностранных дел Республики Казахстан. В 1992 г М.Т.Лаумулин стажировался в Монтерейскоминститутемеждународныхисследований(США).В1993и 1994 гг. проходил краткосрочные дипломатические стажировки при Государственном департаменте США и МИД ФРГ. В качестве приглашенного исследователя М.Т.Лаумулин работал в различных зарубежных центрах - в Мэрилэндском университете в 1994 г., Центре по ядерному нераспространению при Монтерейском институте международных исследований в 1995(США),Центрепоизучениюевропейскойинтеграции(ФРГ)в1997-98 гг. С 1992 г. М.Т.Лаумулин - постоянный член Международной группы по изучению проблем ядерного нераспространения.

М.Т.Лаумулин неоднократно награждался грантами и стипендиями различных зарубежных фондов - Фонда Фулбрайт (1995), Фонда Макартуров (1997), Конференции германских академий наук (1997), Института им. Дж.Кеннана в Вашингтоне (1998) и Оборонного колледжа НАТО в Риме (2002).

В2002-2003 гг. – заместитель директора КИСИ; с 2003 – гнс КИСИ.

С1999 по 2006 – политический обозреватель общественно-политическо- го журнала «КонтиненТ». С 2006 по 2009 гг. – ведущий телепрограммы «Международнаяпанорама»нателеканале«Астана».С2006г.–гнсИМЭП приФондеПервогоПрезидента.С2003г.понастоящеевремяМ.Лаумулин читаеткурсыпогеополитике,международнымотношениямиисториографии Центральной Азии в КазНУ.

Политологические работы М.Т.Лаумулина публиковались в России и странахСНГ,США,ФРГ,ИранеиПакистане.М.Т.Лаумулин-авторсвыше двухсотстатейирядамонографийпопроблемамисториииисториографии Казахстана и Центральной Азии, востоковедения, международных отношений и внешней политики Казахстана, в том числе:

Генеалогические таблицы по изучению европейских средневековых династий.- Алма-Ата:КазГУ,1985. - 45 с.

КазахстаниДоговоронераспространенииядерногооружия.-Алматы: КИСИ,1994. - 29 с. (в соавторстве с У.Касеновым и Д.Елеукеновым, на рус. и англ.)

Западнаяшколасреднеазиеведенияиказахстаники.-Алма-Ата:Гылым, 1992. - 90 с.

Западные исследователи Средней Азии и Казахстана. Биобиблиографический указатель.- Алматы:Кенже пресс, 1994. - 100 с. (в соавторстве с Т.Бейсембиевым)

436

ForeignPolicyandSecurityoftheRepublicofKazakhstan.-Almaty:Eurasia Foundation, 1997. - 168 p. (Внешняя политика и безопасность Республики Казахстан», на английском языке)

Die EU als Modell für die zentralasiatische Integration? Discussion Paper C-29. - Bonn: ZEI, 1999. - 57 S. (ЕС как модель для центральноазиатской интеграции?», на немецком языке)

Казахстан в современных международных отношениях: безопасность, геополитика, политология. – Алматы: КИСИ, 2000.- 478 с.

Антология истории Казахстана. Т.I. Ч.I. Под ред. М.Т.Баймаханова,

В.К.Григорьева. – Алматы: Адилет, 2001. – 256 с. (в соавторстве с А.А.Галиевым и А.В.Панфиловым).

The Security, Foreign Policy and International Relationship of Kazakhstan afterIndependence:1991-2001.–Almaty:KazISSandFriedrichEbertStiftung, 2002.–212p.(Безопасность,внешняяполитикаимеждународныеотноше- ния Казахстана после независимости, на английском языке)

Центральная Азия до и после 11 сентября: геополитика и безопас- ность.-Алматы:КИСИ,2002.–210с.(всоавторствесМ.С.Ашимбаевым, Е.В.Тукумовым, Л.Ю.Гусевой, Д.А.Калиевой, А.Г.Кожиховым).

NewChallengesandNewGeopoliticsinCentralAsia:afterSeptember11.- Almaty: KazISS, 2003. – 198 p. (в соавторстве с М.С.Ашимбаевым и др.).

АнтологияисторииКазахстана.НезависимыйКазахстан.Зарубежнаяис- ториография.Т.Х.Ч.I.Подред.А.В.Панфилова.–Алматы:АЮВПШАди- лет, 2006. – 140 с. (в соавторстве с А.А.Галиевым и А.В.Панфиловым).

TheGeopoliticsofXXICenturyinCentralAsia.–Almaty:KazISS,2007.–281 p. (Геополитика Центральной Азии в XXI веке, на английском языке).

История внешней политики США. Учебное пособие. Под ред. Ф.Т.Кукеевой. – Алматы: КазНУ, 2007. – 280 с. (в соав. С К.Байзаковой, Ф.Кукеевой, К.Умаровым).

Роль США в Центральной Азии. Учебное пособие. – Алматы: КазНУ, 2007. – 163 с.

БиблиографическийуказательпоЦентральнойАзии,международным отношениямигеополитике.–Алматы:ИМЭП,2008.–320с.(всоавторстве с М.Е.Шайхутдиновым).

Центральная Азия в зарубежной политологии и мировой геополитике.

В5 томах. – Алма-Ата: КИСИ, 2005-09.

437

Для заметок

438

Для заметок

439