 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
CONCLUSION
The debates on the Russian policy in Central Asia reflect the fact that Russia has not yet fully defined for itself the significance of the Central Asian region as a whole. Hence the inconsistency of practical steps. The talk about the prospects of economic integration is accompanied by the establishment of a customs office in the airport in Moscow where airliners from Central Asia arrive. Searches for collective security models coexist with the non-fulfilment of the concluded bilateral agreements (for instance, with Kazakhstan).
In principle, the discussion of the questions of Russian policy in Central Asia and the attempts of the politicians, economists, and the military to optimize the approaches to the region testify to the processes of democratization of Russian society. At the same time the debate shows general uncertainty in Russia as to how far its commitments in the post-Soviet territory should go, lack of strategic vision, rivalry among different institutions and public figures.
One can identify two opposite approaches to Central Asia. The first proceeds from the assumption that Central Asia is an economic, political and military burden to Russia. More so, being culturally alien to it, the region would rather become a part of the "expanded Middle East" than stay with Russia. The only optimal solution would be total withdrawal from Central Asia accompanied by emigration of the Russians from the area.
The second approach runs as follows. Russia must keep its control in the region by all possible means. The newly independent countries are doomed to foreign domination. If Russia leaves the region or even if its presence significantly weakens, the Central Asian countries would get involved into alliances hostile to Russia.
These mutually excluding ideas do not shape practical policy though their existence cannot be totally ignored by the politicians. Along with them there are more extreme approaches running from the Communist idea of restoration of the USSR to the nationalist schemes of a new unitarian state based upon the Slavic republics of CIS plus those areas of Kazakhstan which are populated by the Russians.
The adherents of more moderate points of view take into consideration existing interdependence between Russia and the Central Asian republics. Their assumptions of models of co-existence with Central Asia are based upon differentiated approach to the countries of the region. Kazakhstan is singled out and perceived as an indispensable member of any future Federation or Confederation. Other republics can be assosiated with the new Federation but the forms of such association are as yet not clear.
The Russian political debate on Central Asia has its own peculiarities.
Not infrequently the debates are of a speculative or purely time-serving nature. The specific mechanism of decision-making in Russia is such that political parties with their different programs are given little opportunity. Backstage lobbying and personal connections and predilections play an important role.
Almost any issue is used in domestic political struggle by forces of different political orientations. Often they even use same arguments to support their respective points.
Emergence of national Russian idea could not but have its impact on the approaches to the issue of all political forces engaged in the debate, including democrats.
Positions of institutions and individuals are in a flux. For example, the Foreign Ministry at the beginning of the 90s was perceived as a proponent of pro-Western orientation at the expense of Central Asia and other Southern republics. In 1995, according to Foreign Ministry, relations with CIS countries were Russia's foreign policy priority.
In fact only positions of communists and nationalists showed a great deal of consistency. Not all issues that might be important in practical policy have become a subject of debates. For example, the need to keep access to the markets of the region or to have supplies of certain raw materials has not been widely discussed.
The strenghthening of presidential rule in the Central Asian republics did not arise many comments. Russian officials while claiming necessity of free press and observance of human rights believe that in traditionalistic societies autoritarian regimes can better ensure stability. The majority of political forces do not seriously consider a possibility of Central Asia setting an example for Russia in this respect. They would rather think that eventual development of authoritarian current in Russia might be welcomed in Central Asia.
The debates illustrate all pecularities of the period of transition the post-Soviet republics are living through. A search for new models of coexistence is going on, and officially proclaimed Russia's readiness for reintegration would not make this search any easier. Lack of resources and limited economic capabilities are preventing Russia from becoming an indispensable partner for all.
When analyzing the numerous points of view regarding the problem of Russia's relationships with Central Asia, the following possible courses of events can be suggested.
Russia's integration with the majority of Central Asian states. This possibility is unrealistic and less of all meets the interests of the present regime. The ideal scenario for the Russian politicians would be one that will not require much expense from Russia to develop contacts with Central Asia and maintain stability in the region. The Central Asian states would, in principle, themselves grapple with their problems relying on the assistance of external forces, whose activity, however, should not lead to the domination of one foreign sta-te or another or to the complete ousting of Russia.
Russia's increasing departure from Central Asia. This possibility likewise seems unrealistic in the nearest future. Not only do the Central Asian states need Russia but this country itself, considering the present level of its engagement, will not be able to quickly curtail its presence. Neoisolationism is gradually petering out, and politically it is less fashionable to harp on the Asian burden and the special role of the West in the revival of Russia.
Asymmetric mutual links. This scenario actually covers a transitional period, during which the sides do not set themselves ambitious tasks: to ensure a new form of confederation or Eurasian union, or conditions for a final divorce.
The main factor that works towards Russia's continuing "cohesion" with Central Asia remain the national security considerations. This comprises not only the conflicts erupting in the region itself but also its rising strategic importance in case of difficulties in Russia's relations with the West. Thus, the enlargement of NATO most probably might be interpreted as an attempt at isolating Russia, which will contribute to intensified search for defense arrangements within CIS, including Central Asia, as a counterbalance to unfavorable developments.
In the nearest future any integration processes can supposedly be based on asymmetric relations with separate states of Central Asia. To a certain extent the levels of mutual links can repeat the configuration of the regional subsystems in the military defense union proposed by the military. The Kazakhstan-Russian contacts are included in one independent subsystem and Russian relations with the rest of Central Asia, in another. Each subsystem contains, depending on the intensity and character of threats, its own complex of links. For Kazakhstan these are inter-ethnic problems requiring a joint approach to their solution, as well as the factor of Chinese menace. The second group includes the containment of the threat coming from Afghanistan. National security requirements will probably also cause asymmetry within each of the subsystems as well. For example, Tajikistan, of no value to Russia either politically or economically, owing to its geopolitical position will be absorbing most of the resources and demanding from Russia greater commitments than the states developed relations with which could have a more balanced and mutually advantageous character.
Generally speaking, the transition period alone, during which relations between the republics are neither artificially impeded nor forced, can lay the foundations for an integratiodictated by real needs and not by propagandistic constructions.
NOTES
Izvestiya, February 7, 1995
Sodruzhestvo nesavisimih gosudarstv: protsessi i perspectivi. Doklad Tsentra mezhdunarodnih issledovaniyi MGIMO. (The Commonwealth of Independent States: Processes and Perspectives. Report of the Center for International Studies, Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Moscow.: September 1992, p. 17 )
Novoye Vremya, N 47, 1992, p. 13
Graham E. Fuller, Central Asia: The Quest for Identity.- Current History, April 1994, Vol.93, No 582, p.146
Moskovskiye Novosti, March 17, 1991
Igor Rotar. Will Central Asia Explode. - Nezavisimaya gazeta, January 21, 1993
Sergei Solodovnik. Stability in Central Asia and Russia's Strategy Options. - Rossiya i musulmamskii mir (Russia and Muslim World), N 3, 1994, p. 23
Assan Nougmanov, Kazakhstan's Challenges: The Case of a Central Asian Nation in Transition. - Harvard International Review, vol. XV, N 3, Spring 1993, p.12
Sergei Solodovnik. Ibid., p.27-28
Ilya Mogilevkin. Russia Underestimates Danger from the South. - Nesavisimaya gazeta, September 15, 1994
Rossia, December 18-24, 1991, N 50 (58)
Moskovskiye Novosti, April, 14, 1993
Alexei Malashenko. Islamic Pause. - Nezavisimaya gazeta, February 2, 1994
Interfax News Agency, Moscow, October 8, 1992
Nezavisimaya gazeta, March 28, 1992
Ibid.
Boris Eltsyn's Statement at the 6Th Congress of People's Deputies. Moscow, April 21, 1992. See Nezavisimaya gazeta, January 19, 1994
Izvestiya, April 27, 1994
N.Masanov. Situatsiya v Kazakhstane: vzglyad iznutri. - Gosudarstva Tsentralnoi Azii: poisk mesta v mirovoi politike. (N. Masanov. Situation in Kazakhstan: A View from Inside. - The States of Central Asia: A Search for Place in International Politics. Moscow, 1995, p.35)
Andranik Migranyan. Rossia i blizhnee zarubezhye (Russia and the Near abroad). - Nezavisimaya gazeta, January18, 1994
Nezavisimaya gazeta, February 9, 1995
See: Alexei Arbatov. Realnaya integratsiya: s kem ikakaya? (Real Integration: with Whom and What?). - Nezavisimaya gazeta, June 24, 1994
See: Izvestiya, May 4, 1994
Ibid.
Nezavisimaya gazeta, March 28, 1992
Vladimir Lukin. Rossia v dalnih i blizhnih kroogah (Russia - in Far and Near Circles). - Segodnya, September 3, 1993
Andranik Migranyan. Ibid.
Nezavisimaya gazeta, April 4, 1995
S. Makarova. Economicheskaia reforma v stranah Tsentralnoi Azii v otsenke ekspertov MVF (Economic Reform in the Central Asian States Estimated by the IBM Experts). - Aziatsky Vestnik, N 7, Moskva: POSTFACTUM, 1993, p. 8-9
Goskomstat (The State Committee of Statistics), Russian Federation
Nezavisimaya gazeta, July 29, 1993
Nezavisimaya gazeta, September 9, 1993
33. Sodruzhestvo nesavisimih gosudarstv: protsessi i perspectivi. Doklad Tsentra mezhdunarodnih issledovaniyi MGIMO. (The Commonwealth of Independent States: Processes and Perspectives. Report of the Center for International Studies, Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Moscow.: September 1992, p. 17 )
Sergei Zhukov. Siryeviye resoorsy Tsentralnoi Azii i perspektivy integratsii v mirovuyu ekonomiku. - Gosudarstva Tsentralnoi Azii: poisk mesta v mirovoi politike. (Sergei Zhukov. Raw Resources of Central Asia and Perspectives of Its Integration into World Economy. - The States of Central Asia: A Search for Place in International Politics. Moscow, 1995, p. 24-25)
Sergei Polyakov. Osobennost Rossiiskoi imperii, kotoruyu polnostyu ignorirovali politiki - eyo nesrelost. - Gosudarstva Tsentralnoi Azii: poisk mesta v mirovoi politike. (Sergei Polyakov. A Pecularity of Russian Empire Completely Ignored by Politicians: Its Immaturity. - The States of Central Asia: A Search for Place in International Politics. Moscow, 1995, p. 51)
Sergei Zhukov. Ibid, p.26
Obstchaya gazeta, December 12-22, 1994
24 chasa, January 5, 1995
Nezavisimaya gazeta, September 22, 1994
Interfax, March 2, 1995
Interfax, January 16, 1995
Izvestiya, December 23, 1994
Interfax, January 13, 1995
Neft Rossii, (Oil of Russia) N 0, 1994, p.5
See: Roy Allison. Military Forces in the Soviet Succesor States. - Adelphi paper, N 280, October, 1993, p. 54-63
John W.R. Lepingwell. The Russian Military and Security Policy in the 'Near Abroad'. - Survival, vol.36, N 3, Autumn 1994, p.70
Krasnaya zvezda, November 4, 1993
Nezavisimaya gazeta, February 8, 1994
Krasnaya zvezda, January 20, 1994
Leonid Ivashov. Perspectivy integratsii vooruzhennyhsil SNG (Perspectives of Integration of the CIS Armed Forces).- Nezavisimaya gazeta, October 18, 1994
Krasnaya zvezda, July 6, 1994
Nezavisimaya gazeta, June 21, 1995
 |