Emerging Contours in Central Asia

Columnist Dr MAQSUDUL HASAN NURI writes about the new geo-political environment in the proximity of the Central Asian Republics. 

Future modernisation process in Central Asia will entail rhythmic cycles. The former Communist leadership, over the time, is likely to give way to more nationalist leadership and this could mean taking tougher stand against Russia and some of the Western powers. This phase of modernisation, unless properly controlled and calibrated, could entail conflict and social disruptions that would be detrimental to the stability of these republics.

The discovery of oil and gas and the building of pipelines may prove to be a double-edged sword. While it could induce prosperity if a paradigm of sustained development is followed - a la present China - it may also lead to glaring disparities between and within nations or regions. As the CARs have come into existence not through any revolutionary or natural process of liberation, the odds seem against them. Yet, their leadership has the added benefit to learn from the modernisation experiences of the post World War developing world. If visionary and innovative, they could direct their development trajectory towards the proper path after imbibing the right lessons. Only time will show if they become mere passive victims of the globalisation process or are able to harness these forces in line with their national interests.

Another factor that impinges on their future development is their self-perception as new actors in the newly created geopolitical space after the demise of the Soviet Union. Do they form part of Asia or Europe? Further, as transit countries, how do they view their importance in the region?

Most of them are keen to enlist members of OSCE and NATO and are hostage to policies of these organisations. There is a dire need for conflict prevention and conflict management if investment and flow of trade and oil is to proceed unimpeded. North Caucasus is a troubled region and this turbulence could have its adverse fall out in the Southern Caucasus and vice versa. After all, the two regions are not hermetically sealed.

Attempts at regional cooperation within the Turkic states of the region, viz, BSSC, GUAAM and ECO are still at a rudimentary stage given the nature of loose groupings as mere consultative group of Central CIS states. Ukraine, as part of GUUAM, a loose organisation, desires to become a key transit state. Situated in the Caucasus Sea of Azov region, it is a strong card for transport of oil and facilities.

It is possible to layer the nations in the Caspian Sea region by their functions; first, are the littoral states surrounding the Caspian who are in charge of exploitation and protection of resources and are the initial staging point for oil flowing through pipelines. Second, are those across through which the oil pipelines will traverse until it reaches port facility. And, the third tier is of those states with port facilities for onward shipping to the rest of the world. The oil and gas producing countries such as Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan are literally at the mercy of erstwhile Soviet Union transportation systems, complicated by Russia’s control over all current gas and oil exit - with the exception of newly-opened line across Georgia to the Black Sea port of Supsa.

The recent victory of Vladimir Putin as the second elected President of the Russia in May, 2,000 was generally hailed by all the CAR leaders; privately however, these leaders are concerned over his somewhat nationalistic/chauvinistic agenda in Chechnya and the Caucasus. Earlier, the visits of the US CLA chief, FBI Director and the Secretary of State - all underscore the importance of the region. Actually, Putin’s objective to make the CARS more self-reliant seems to have been made more difficult by the presence of Russian troops in these republics, encouragement of civil wars and reliance of the republics on oil and pipelines in the region. The fifth annual summit of the Shanghai Five (Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan) in June in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, addresses the perceived concerns of religious extremism, cross border terrorism, narcotics trade and traffic in small arms. It is reported that India and Iran may also join this grouping.

In the region, a basic distinction can be made between those states that are trying to break free from Russia’s dominance and those that have constantly stayed within Russia’s orbit. Amongst the former, three are identifiable: Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan and Tajikistan. Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have tried to pursue independent policies. Uzbekistan is a more populous and President Islam Karimov has self-described it as a ‘front-line state’. Uzbekistan has developed good relations with like-minded states such as Georgia and Ukraine. Further, it has strongly denounced moves that aim to promote CIS’s further integration. In practice, it was suspended from participating in the CIS Inter-parliamentary Assembly in Sept 1997, refused attendance in the CIS Customs Union and most recently, refused to renew the CIS collective security in early 1999. The latter move has emboldened both Georgia and Azerbaijan to do the same despite their vulnerable position vis-a-vis Russia. Outside the CIS, Uzbekistan’s relations with NATO, Germany and especially the US are improving. It has, for example, supported NATO’s eastward expansion and endorsed the Baltic state’s entry into the Alliance. Besides, both Uzbekistan and Israel have supported all US moves in the ME with reference to Iran and Iraq.

Within the CIS, presently three broad or loosely-shaped alignments are shaping up: Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The so-called GUUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova) resist any further strengthening of the CIS at the expense of the sovereignty of individual republics. All have nationalist breakaway movements supported by Russia on their soil. Since 1997, they are all engaged in greater cooperation. In 1998, a common peacekeeping battalion was set up under the aegis of the UN in order to protect the export of oil through the Azerbaijani pipeline. In September 1998, cooperation on border troops was agreed upon. In the economic sphere, UK and Moldova are interested in the export of the Caspian oil over the Black Sea to Europe. Georgia and Azerbaijan are keen to form a ‘bridge’ aligning the Caucasian states to Europe in more than one sense. In addition, the above four plan to play a signal role in reviving the ‘Silk Road’ from Europe to Asia - the TRACECA project, which will offer new and alternative supply routes to the existing Russian routes. Other bilateral agreements are also being signed between the above countries.

Azerbaijan, is the newly emerging political and economic hub of the entire Caspian Sea region and wants to keep Armenia out of GUUAM and the outside world with the cooperation of Turkey and Georgia. Since Armenia is for the time being excluded, along with Iran, the former wins by default because of the choice of the Baku-Ceyhan project. Tibilisi has greater vested interest in the exclusion of Armenia from the scheme of things, as for it a more logical Baku-Ceyhan transportation route matures.

In April 1999, Uzbekistan joined GUUAM on the occasion of NATO’s 50th celebration. It is significant that members of the Alliance chose Washington to formalise and institutionalise the Alliance. Azerbaijan was named as Chairman and the grouping was renamed as GUUAM. Presently, CIS is divided into two main camps: the Russian-led CIS (Collective Security Treaty) and the pro-Western GUUAM - to some extent neutralising the political influence of CIS as an organisation.

In Central Asia and the Caucasus, although new alignments are evident, it can be said that web of relationships are still evolving. Fresh alignments and counter-alignments could always follow. Ironically, some of these new alignments of states falling on opposite sides may entail many shared interests and interdependence. All this tends to somewhat blur the picture of direction of change in a region that is going to be complex, dynamic, unpredictable and quite challenging for outsiders’ observers.

Futuristically, the region could go along two possible directions: broad cooperation on basis of international law or the power-based political alliances within selected countries. In the opinion of Gernot Erler, Chairman of the SDPG faction in the Bundestag, the situation in the Central and Middle Asian region should be taken as a “global pilot project” for “preventive peace policy.”

About the Author

Maqsudul Hasan Nuri graduated from the University of the Punjab, Lahore in 1966. Was commissioned from the Pakistan Military Academy he served the Pakistan Army till retiring in Oct 1974 as a Captain in the Artillery. Did his M.Sc. (International Relations) from Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad in 1978, M.A. (International Relations) from The Australian National University Canberra in 1979 and Ph.D. (International Studies) University of South Carolina (USA) in 1990. Since Oct 1990 he is also a Senior Research Scholar at the Institute of Regional Studies Islamabad. A prolific writer he has written articles and monographs for professional journals such as Regional Studies, the quarterly journal of the Institute of Regional Studies Islamabad. His articles have been published in leading newspapers of the country including The Nation, Pakistan Observer, The News, The Muslim. He has given lectures and talks on international relations at seminars and conferences in Pakistan as well as abroad. He is a member of Islamabad Council of World Affairs, life member All-Pakistan-ChinaFriendship Association.