CAMsP

Contents

FACTORS OF INTEGRATION AND DISINTEGRATION OF CENTRAL ASIA

Alisher TAKSANOV, Ph.D. (Economics),

business weekly «Oriental Business-Herald»,

Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

Which are the factors that predetermine the integration and at the same time disintegration of the states of Central Asia (CA)? Taking into account the specifics of the issue, we, first of all, shall mark the most important ones.

Ethno-Religious Factor

For many centuries, the peoples of CA lived in a single territorial space - the Mawaraounahr - that is “behind the river”. That has left a common imprint on their everyday life, culture, traditions, beliefs and language. The advocates of integration are convinced that shared history is enough so that the ethnic groups could be brought closer. The basis for such a process is the idea of the pan-Turkism, which originated in Ottoman Turkey at the end of the XIXth century. The essence of this concept is in the unity of all the Turkic peoples due to their common linguistic inheritance.

Neo pan-Turkism started to develop most intensively in CA after the collapse of the USSR.  Such Newly Independent States (NIS) as Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan even tried import the Turkish model of socio-economic development. Turkey itself tried to actively propagate the idea of pan-Turkism itself, being itself in the role of the leader of the Turkic peoples and their potential center.

The common idea of the uniting remained important for the Central Asia nations and peoples. Alongside with this, Uzbekistan put forward the slogan: «Turkestan is Our Common Home» which was to a greater extent directed to the socio-cultural uniting of the ethnoses of the region than to the political side of this issue. The opponents of such an approach believe that this initiative of Uzbekistan is the transformed pan-Turkism, specifying that the Center this time would be Uzbekistan itself. It is natural that not everywhere the slogan was perceived positively, especially by the Tajik politicians (the ethnos of which is not Turkic) and Slavic ideologists.

Territorial Factor

The integration processes among the NIS can be intensified in connection with that in the near historic past the Central Asia ethnoses administratively and territorially were included in the states of various types, complicated by structure and unstable in character. At the end of the 19^th century the population of the region resided in the Turkestan came under the Tsarist rule. After the Socialist Revolution of 1917 in Russia new states started being formed in the territory of Central Asia - the Turkestan ASSR, the Bukhara People’s Soviet Republic, the Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic, the Kirghiz (Kazakh) ASSR - which finally entered the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The process of determining the administrative-territorial borders was going on until the end of the 50’s.

The national-state demarcation in the 20-s gave rise to numerous problems which during the years of the Soviet power were forcibly suppressed. The energy of the social contradictions accumulated for that time, nowadays is ready to splash out and manifest itself with a devastating force.

Which problems are these? Based on Turkestan, the Bukhara and Khorezm People’s Republics several independent or autonomous formations were created which for short period were included in the structure of the RSFSR (the Russian Soviet Federation of Socialist Republics), and in other of Uzbekistan, at some time within Kazakhstan, until they were transformed into the present day independent republics. In this sense, the Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Turkmen and Tajik peoples were provided with the unique possibility to develop in their own national-state formations.

The administrative-territorial division of the new republics was implemented, to a greater extent conditionally and without taking into consideration the consequences that in the course of time can arise. Thus, in conformity with the statistical data in 1990 Kazakhstan possessed the territory of 2,717 million sq. km with a population of 16,7 million persons, Uzbekistan accordingly 447 thousand sq. km and 20,7 million persons, Tajikistan - 143,1 thousand sq. km and 5,358 million persons, Turmenistan - 488,1 thousand sq. km and 3,7 million persons, Kyrgyzstan - 198,5 thousand sq. km and 4,4 million persons. Thus, the density of the population in these republics equaled: in Kazakhstan - 6,2 persons per 1 sq. km, Uzbekistan - 46,3, Tajikistan - 37,4 Turkmenistan - 7,6, Kyrgyzstan - 22,3 persons.[1]

With such a comparison one can come to the conclusion that some nations with a lesser number of population possessed a larger size of territory of their state formations. Nowadays, it is difficult to argue or say which measures were used by Bolsheviks to demarcate nations in detail according to territories, since at that time one part of the population of Turkestan lived a settled way of life and was engaged in cultivating land in a limited space (for one, the Uzbeks), the other - a nomadic way of life and with this the territory of their area spread for huge distances (the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz). That’s why after the division of Central Asia a considerable part of the nations found themselves beyond the limits of their national states. For instance, there are 24,4% of the population of Tajikistan are ethnic Uzbeks, in Kyrgyzstan  13,8%, Turkmenistan - 9%, Kazakhstan - 2,5%.  The large Kazakh settlements are available in the Tashkent and Djizak Oblasts of Uzbekistan, and Turkmen in the Khorezm Oblast, etc.

The present assurances of the heads of the states of Central Asia concerning the inviolability of borders, gives some guarantees of preserving the status quo. Nevertheless, already at present some politicians put the issues of revising the territorial integrity, though not yet on an official level. It is no secret that the problem exists on the pretension of some informal Tajik politicians to the Uzbek towns - Samarkand and Bukhara[2], and the Turkmen ones - to the Khorezm Oblast of Uzbekistan. The Osh tragedy at the end of the 80-s arose because of the friction among the Uzbeks and Kyrgyz due to the deficit of land and water resources and disputes of land division.

It is precisely the last issue that causes fears with the opponents of the Central Asia integration. Thus, according to the opinion existing among the Kazakh experts, the issue of the water and land resources and the  high birth rate in Uzbekistan will force the population of this republic will turn to the territories of their neighbors. According to their prognosis, an intensified migration of Uzbeks to Turkmenistan or Kazakhstan will start which will cause a social blow up in CA. That’s why some authors propose to stop the attempts to integrate into a unified economic, social space with the demographically dangerous countries.

At the same time, and it is worth mentioning, Kazakhstan itself feels the influence of the separatism, which are capable of splitting the republic into two parts: the southern one - the Kazakh and the northern - the Russian-speaking. The northern regions of the country where the Russian speaking population prevails, is characterized as the most industrially developed which have technological-production and economic-cooperation links, formed still during the USSR existence, with the Russian territories. It is precisely in the Northern Kazakhstan where the danger of separatism exists. In case a conflict emerges the leadership of the republic will hardly be able to prevent this process, even if military force is applied.

Therefore, the decision of the Kazakh leadership to transfer the capital of Kazakhstan from the southern Almaty to the northern Astana becomes clear. On the other hand, Kazakhstan can’t ignore the desire of the peoples to unite with the CA Republics. The political aspect of such integration can also promote to the strengthening of the statehood of Kazakhstan, the development of the economy of its southern territories.

Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have already implemented the delimitation of their borders, confirming the formed territories as of the end of 1991 as indivisible and inviolable. On the other hand, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan so far refuse to make similar steps which serves as the basis for the opponents to consider that after all someday the borders will be changed, especially when taking into account the fact that, in their opinion, Tashkent had chosen Amir Timur, a cruel conqueror, as its national symbol.

 Economic Factor

The collapse of the economic system of the USSR has revealed the weak sides of the potential of the economic, financial, and human resources of the NIS. Under the conditions of the transition of the countries of the region to a market economy the two mutually opposite tendencies started to be distinctly traced: integration and disintegration.

The disintegration was seen in the competition among the Central Asia states in the issue of their search for markets to sell their raw material products. Here, two countries competed in regional leadership, and in trying to impose their economic models on the region. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, tried to their position as the embodiment of future reform models. The leader would dictate and fix prices for products, goods and services, determine the policy of relations with regional countries.

Turkmenistan, having seen the element of contradictions in the integration refused to participate in regional economic programs. Experts believed that this republic got frightened to be under the pressure of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan and turn in perspective into their raw material appendage, as it was before within the framework of the USSR. Besides, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are competitors on exporting gas and regulating prices in favor of the strong in the region, something that would not be in the interests of Turkmenistan. Moreover, even the two countries competing for regional prominence, are not able to make serious investments in Turkmenistan. Therefore, Ashkhabad prefers bilateral agreements instead of a regional integration process.

The necessity of a CA re-integration process is conditioned by a considerable weakening of trade, and industrial links within the NIS. According to the available experts’ estimates, this circumstance conditioned more than two thirds drop of the volume of the industrial production in CA in 1992-95. According to the specialists’ estimates, under the complete economic isolation, for example, Kazakhstan is able to create independently approximately one fourth of its final product, whereas Russia – approximately two thirds.

That is why the re-integration and economic specialization has become an important link in the further strengthening of regional economy. For Uzbekistan is being formed as an automobile-building republic, the trucks of which (the UzDaewoo, Mercedes) were adapted to local conditions and can be used in all the states of the region. Kazakhstan has a developed black metallurgy, etc.Considering the economic and social development, as well as the level of its education, it is quite natural that Uzbekistan can become the «locomotive» of the integration processes taking place in Central Asia.

Criminal Factor

With independence, Central Asia discovered itself situated near zones of drug production and export, such as the «golden crescent» (Middle East) and the «golden triangle» (South-East Asia). Soon after,  the Central Asia republics became new trade roots - for drug-transit.

Ther early 90’s also witnessed a dramatic growth of drug production within the impoverished states of Central Asia. Ministry of Internal Affairs sources in Tashkent are worried with reports of growing drugs cultivation in districts of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan that are near the republic border. In Uzbekistan the state is fighting local drug cultivation, and the number of crimes associated with drugs has declined by 8% between 1992 and 1997.

In 1997 a project to  fight against flow of drugs along the route Khorog (Tajikistan) - Osh (Kyrgyzstan) - Andijan (Uzbekistan) was set-u. The basis for it was the Memorandum on Mutual Cooperation in Fighting Narco-business, signed in May 1996 by the leaders of the five Central Asia Republics and the leadership of the UN International Program on controlling drugs (UNDCP)[3]. 

Military Factors

Trends of instability in Central Asia are recognized as sources of possible future conflicts. The five-year long civil war in Tajikistan led to the spread of fear and militarization within the region. Prior to 1996 Russia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan had their military units in the structure of the peace-keeping forces in the territory of Tajikistan. There were even quotas for financing these forces established at the Summits of the Heads of the CIS States, and what’s more, 50% of all costs fell on Russia, 20% - on Kazakhstan, 15% each - on Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. But later the three Central Asia states refused to participate in holding military operations in the Tajikistan shaking with civil war.

One could imagine that the outside threats, and fears of local instability would lead to close military cooperation, and a process of integration. But this is not so. For example, Uzbekistan does not wish to enter any military-political union. Turkmenistan, having received the international status of a neutral country, does not intervene in any conflict and at the same time does not provide military support to anybody. Against this background, the military factor can’t be the basis for integration. In 1994, at the meeting of the three leaders - the Presidents of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan decided to create a regional peacekeeping force. Soon the Unified Central Asia Battalion - «Tsentrasbat» was formed. But many experts believe that this battalion cannot be used where the participating countries have their strategic interests. Thus, the «Tsentrasbat» is not designed to localize conflicts in CA, it can be used for peacekeeping operations within other UN formations in far away conflict regions. The experience in Tajikistan is a witness to the failure of Central Asian states to cooperate together to face regional security threats.

Ecological Factor

The Aral tragedy was left to the CA states as one of the most sinister legacy of the USSR. The drying up of the land-locked sea as a result of the ill-considered usage of the water basin has caused serious ecological problems. Among which are the removal of huge areas from the agricultural crop rotation, drop of yield capacity, deserting, difficulties with water supply, with food products, high mortality rates and the level of diseases among population. This problem directly concerns Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan where Aral is located.

The five CA leaders have tried to find ways to face this catastrophe, appealing to the assistance of the international community. Though it is impossible to say of any success as of today, nonetheless, it should be stated that the Aral has managed to unite the peoples of Central Asia. The International Foundation for Saving the Aral was created, the Foundation «ECOSAN», which is trying to muse advanced methodologies to re-treat both water supply and quality, as well as quality of soil.

Political Factor

Iran, Pakistan and Turkey tried to get Central Asia more involved in the Economic Cooperation Organization. However, this structure, which is too politicized and economically dispersed with a misty program of business interaction, on the contrary, has pushed back a number of republics (in particular, Uzbekistan) from the active participation in the ECO.

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and later Tajikistan have concentrated their efforts more in the development of their integrative structure - the CA Unified Economic Space. Simultaneously, this formation has also become the form of the collective counteraction to the attempts of several powers to turn Central Asia into a gradually extending bridgehead of their presence. Other analysts started to consider the Unified Economic Space (UES) of Central Asia as bi-polar center of force within the framework of the CIS or see in it a prototype of the Union of the Turk-speaking States. The third consider this to be a counterweight to the «Agreement of the Four» that included Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

Some experts on the UES are confused by the participation of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan in this integrated community. On the one hand, within the framework of the UES its own customs space is created, and then these two republics alongside with the two Slavic states form their Customs Union. As some analysts consider, there emerges an economic contradiction. On the other hand, this causes irritation with partners, since as the oriental proverb goes: «One can’t eat plov from two boilers at a time». For one, Tashkent, having signed the Agreement on the Eternal Friendship with these countries, in the meantime conducts the policy of the «cold peace». The censorship prohibits, by the way, to mention Kazakhstan in the mass media as though such a neighbor does not exist.

The position of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan is fairly clear. They can’t keep their economies floating with no close contact with Russia. They can’t quarrel with their brothers on the area as well. That is why, the Kazakh specialists propose various methods of forming an economic union which would satisfy both Uzbekistan and Russia. Other analysts substantiate such an approach by the different level and multistage integration within the framework of the CIS, something that is sharply criticized by Tashkent.

Thus, complicated political and economic processes are going on in the territory of Central Asia, a part of which promote to the integration and a part, vice versa, hinders it. Moreover, the participants of the Central Asia community look with suspicion at each other, fearing to strengthen the positions of some of the countries. For instance, even the marriage of the children of the Presidents of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan in summer of 1998 was considered by the Uzbek side (secretly and informally) as the possibility of the block opposition in CA and the strengthening of the positions of Kazakhstan-Kyrgyzstan in relation to the separate Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.