Dr. Begench Karayev
Everything we see is only one appearance.
Far from the surface of the world to the bottom.
Consider the obvious in the world to be unimportant,
For the secret essence of things is not visible.
Omar Khayyam
Whenever you trust words,
And the truth that is known by the heart,
Let the heart light up from the truth,
There would be no limit to miracles.
Jalaluddin Rumi
Geopolitics of Central Asia: favorable forecast…
This material, brought to the attention of our dear reader, is one of the first in the series of the series “Truth for a diplomat: a view from the East,” which describes and analyzes the unique development of today’s Central Asia, the increasing importance, role and influence of the independent states of the region in the system of international relations of our time.
The Central Asian “five” countries today, through joint efforts, are forming a unique regional community, the development prospects of which attract both large international organizations and influential geopolitical centers of the world. This is confirmed by daily reports in the press and other media about the region’s vibrant relations with other states, both in a bilateral format and in the “Central Asia+” format. The subjects of consideration during meetings and negotiations are the integration of the region into the world market, attracting investments, energy, transport and communications and other promising projects. The issues of adaptation to climate change, water and environmental issues and the development of innovative technologies of the “green economy”, the creation of digital “smart complexes” and others are becoming increasingly relevant.
Today, each of the Central Asian countries has a strategic development program for the coming decades and can demonstrate examples of industrial, infrastructure, transport, socio-economic and other complexes created recently. For example, in Turkmenistan, in a very short time – in just a couple of years, the “smart city” Arkadag was built near the capital of the country, Ashgabat, which shows the greatly increased financial, economic and innovative technological potential of the country. Manufacturers of petrochemical, construction, textile and agricultural products of Turkmenistan are confidently expanding their market spaces in the CIS countries and surrounding regions of the world.
Uzbekistan is known for its ultra-high-speed railways and the production of modern vehicle models. The country has launched program activities to create “comfortable villages” within each mahalla. In addition, Tashkent is developing pilot sites for future “smart cities” in the capital’s Chilanzar and Bunyadkor sectors.
Kazakhstan occupies one of the leading positions in the ranking of countries that support young inventors. Since independence, more than 30 thousand patents have been issued, and innovation in Kazakhstan has become not only a national policy, but also a kind of social movement. In particular, a team of Kazakh schoolchildren inventors presented their innovative project as part of the global competition FIRST Global Challenge, a unique device for producing water from air. According to preliminary calculations, one such generator will be able to process up to 20 liters of water per day in a waterless desert.
Tajikistan is developing innovations within the framework of the “Program for Accelerated Industrialization of the Republic of Tajikistan for 2020–2025.” The technology parks created in the country are concrete results of the implementation of this program. Innovative technology parks are being formed on the basis of the transition to the sixth technological generation of self-developing intelligent systems using artificial intelligence.
In the Kyrgyz Republic, special attention is paid to the development of the IT industry and innovative technologies in the agricultural and processing industries. In particular, the created clusters of the IT sector are exempt from taxes and payments of insurance premiums for 15 years from the date of creation. An example of the effectiveness of such support measures is the activities of the High Technology Park, whose residents export their services to more than 30 countries around the world.
The programs of the annual Consultative Meetings of the Heads of State of Central Asia also testify to the richness and content of the regional partnership.
The joint statement following the Consultative Meeting of the Heads of State of Central Asia (Turkmenbashi, August 6, 2021) contains 28 points on the implementation of common goals of cooperation. In addition to purely political and diplomatic aspects, they include a wide range of partnerships in relevant areas. In development of the program documents, 14 parallel events were simultaneously organized at the site of the fifth Central Asian Summit in Dushanbe on September 14, 2023. They included: (1) EXPO Central Asia 2023, (2) gala concert “Evening of Friendship”, (3) Economic Forum, (4) Second Forum of Rectors of Higher Educational Institutions, (5) First Meeting of Ministers of Transport, (6) Regional meeting of members of the Dialogue of Women Leaders of Central Asia, (7) Exhibition of artists, (8) Forum of scientists, (9) Festival of national dishes, (10) International swimming tournament, (11) Forum of volunteers, (12) Forum youth organizations, (13) Forum of young entrepreneurs, and (14) Forum of heads of government agencies for youth affairs.
It must be added that as a result of the Dushanbe summit, a package of five documents was adopted, the main one of which was the Joint Statement of the Heads of State. In this strategic document, the leaders of the states of the region reaffirmed the exceptional importance of the mechanism of Consultative Meetings for the consistent strengthening of friendly relations between the countries of Central Asia. The heads of state advocated resolving all regional issues exclusively through political and diplomatic means on the basis of equality and respect for each other’s interests.
The heads of state also emphasized that the United Nations is the only universal organization of global reach with universally recognized legitimacy and plays a central role in preserving world peace and security and promoting universal development.
Speaking about the significant evolution of regional partnership in the context of broad international cooperation, it should be noted that in recent years, meetings have been held in the “Central Asia+” format with the leading states of the world and major international organizations. In particular, we can list the summits and meetings of the highest levels in the “Central Asia+1” format: “5+Russia”, “5+USA”, “5+China”, “5+India”, “5+Japan” “, “5+Republic of Korea”, “5+Germany”, ” 5+European Union”, “5+Gulf Cooperation Council”. The great potential for assistance from Central Asian countries to neighboring Afghanistan is evidenced by new formats of meetings within the framework of “Central Asia + Islamic Republic of Afghanistan + People’s Republic of China”, “Central Asia + European Union + Afghanistan ” and others.
The leaders of Central Asia confidently represent their states in the Community of Nations and other international summits and meetings, revealing the prospects for the future development of the countries of the region. At the same time, arguments in favor of peace and sustainable development significantly prevail over the problematic issues of the region, for which appropriate solutions are undoubtedly being developed.
In a historically short time, the states of Central Asia have established diplomatic relations and exchanged embassies with the vast majority of countries in the world. They are also members of the UN, CIS, OSCE, ECO, OIC and other major international organizations, and are actively developing partnerships within the framework of specialized interstate and intergovernmental structures.
The heads of delegations of the Central Asian countries initiate the adoption of major multilateral documents at the level of the General Assembly and other UN structures, put forward proposals for constructive solutions to both regional and broad international problems.
The National Leader of the Turkmen People, Chairman Halk Maslakhaty of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov, in his speech at the X Summit of the Organization of Turkic States ( Atana, November 3 , 2023), touched upon one of the key issues, the solution of which will help find a kind of Ariadne’s thread that can help to safely exit the current, practical stalemate in the system international relations of our time. “In different corners, including in regions close to our countries, there are complex political and strategic situations,” the national Leader of the Turkmen people emphasized in particular, “as a result, the world community is faced with all sorts of global challenges and threats. To overcome these complex cataclysms that have a negative impact on the system of global peace and security, it is important for states to consolidate efforts, carefully assess the emerging political situations and make the necessary decisions.”
This thesis once again emphasizes the need to approach the problems of international dialogue taking into account the global interconnectedness of humanity, the indivisibility and integrity of security. Awareness of such vulnerability suggests the inadmissibility of even the slightest shocks that could provoke the so-called “butterfly effect” in the global space of world politics.
It is no coincidence that Turkmenistan, at the 78th session of the UN General Assembly, took the initiative to prepare a General Security Strategy. The Turkmen side put forward and justified a number of principles for the practical implementation of this initiative:
- Firstly, to prevent conflict situations, in particular, at the initial stage of their occurrence, use preventive diplomacy;
- secondly, make full use of the capabilities of the neutrality mechanism;
- thirdly, restore a culture of dialogue based on trust.
The political and diplomatic basis of the above-mentioned Strategy is strengthening mutual understanding and cooperation of the parties, developing constructive solutions through dialogue, while maintaining an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust.
Veteran of Turkmen diplomacy, ambassador with many years of experience Sapar Berdyniyazov especially focuses on the factor of honest communication in the process of international dialogue. “Dialogue is, first of all, a joint search for truth, based on mutual trust and sincerity of the parties, which will help eliminate existing obstacles and problems,” he says.
The method of dialogue is also a bedrock for the implementation of the fundamental goal of the UN, which states: “To save future generations from the scourge of war.” This is precisely the target task that was defined by the UN founders, who survived the devastating consequences of two world wars, for such a universal organization.
Therefore, it is impossible to think about full-fledged preparations for the UN Summit of the Future scheduled for 22-23 September 2024, where the Pact for the Future is expected to be adopted. Obviously, the outcomes of the Summit will depend on the level of constructive and fruitful discussions. After all, everyone knows the expression saying truth is born in a dispute, but this statement has a continuation – “in a dispute, it also dies.”
All of the above indicates that the relatively young and independent states of Central Asia have opened a new historical page, where they themselves are full-fledged subjects of geopolitics. Their voice is listened to at different poles of global politics, finance and economics. Therefore, in modern times, the Central Asian region cannot be used for placing the well-known “Thucydides trap”.
However, and unfortunately, in some circles, including the famous “Think Tanks” and research centers in a number of countries, there are still those that are captive of the illusions of the “Great Game” that unfolded in the 19th century in the vastness of Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent.
Yes, in the context of current realities, when the confrontation between key actors in global politics is intensifying, the scenario of Game 2.0 cannot be ruled out, where not only great powers will be involved, but also large forces on a regional and continental scale. But at the same time, it is necessary to take into account that the Central Asian region can no longer be the subject of geopolitical bargaining, and its states are not an object of influence, much less intimidation.
If you delve into the essence of the meaning of the painting by the brilliant artist Salvador Dali “The Slave Market with the Appearance of the Invisible Bust of Voltaire,” you will notice a hidden forecast about the coming redivision of the world. Dali created his masterpiece in 1940 in the USA, where he moved with his Russian wife Gala. This was the period of the triumphal march of German troops across Europe under the command of Fuhrer Hitler.
Apparently, Dali’s intuition suggested the essence of the fascist plan “Ost”, which was an extensive program to consolidate the dominance of Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe, the colonization of the occupied regions of the USSR on the basis of racial doctrine and the geopolitical concept of “living space”.
It should be noted that the geopolitical interest of the German elite in relation to Central Asia existed long before the outbreak of World War II. For example, by the end of the 19th century, that is, by the time Germany became more active as a major player in the international arena, the colonial redivision of the world in general terms had already been completed. Therefore, Bismarck’s empire could not expand its overseas territorial possessions without running into resistance from other states: Great Britain, France, Russia, and the Netherlands. One such region in which Germany encountered resistance from other powers was Central Asia. At that period of history, German interests extended to geographical Central Asia, which included the northeastern border region of Iran (Kopet Dag mountain range), the northern regions of Afghanistan (Afghan Turkestan) and India (Kashmir, Punjab), as well as the northwestern Chinese province of Xinjiang (Eastern Turkestan) with the cities of Kashgar and Gulja .
One of the most important reasons for this interest is the intersection of a large number of trade routes in this region, including the famous Great Silk Road. Control over the territory of Central Asia provided significant advantages for trading activities, and the large population (markets and labor resources) together with significant natural resources promised greater economic benefits than the African colonies. But in the event of direct German penetration into this region, it would be limited in its methods due to the presence of large forces in it in the form of Great Britain and Russia.
The implementation of a softer, creeping strategy of “infiltration” of German capital and culture into the countries of Central Asia was then complicated by the fact that politically these countries were relatively independent and were bound by various treaties with Britain and Russia. This prevented the implementation of the German concept of economic colonialism in the context of the geopolitical strategy of “living space,” which involved the direct seizure of territories with their subsequent administration. Therefore, at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, diplomacy and economic influence became the main tools of Germany’s competitive struggle in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Today, let us hope that such aggressive plans of the past, contrary to the theory of “alternative history” by Arnold Toynbee, have sunk into oblivion forever.
However, sometimes one involuntarily gets the impression that any unidirectional movement of the Central Asian states, even in the field of ordinary trade and economic relations, towards one of the geopolitical centers, causes irritation on the opposite side, and vice versa. It is impossible to otherwise evaluate some of the comments and remarks coming from a number of politicians and analysts regarding the increased contacts of the Central Asian countries with key states in world politics. Let’s face it, the analytical media is filled with articles and discussions that Central Asia is almost turning into a testing ground for the “Great Game 2.0”, where the main players are Russia, the USA and China. By the will of the authors, the background stage of such a “game” is filled with such actors as Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Korea, Japan, as well as the collective European Union.
If we take into account such versions, the question arises: is Central Asia really a kind of “octagon” for confrontation, turning into a desired “piece of a tasty pie”? The answer here is clear: no. Let’s say more: no danger, as some experts emphasize, comes from Central Asia. The region today lives its own life with its own long-term national development programs. Yes, life, as always, is not without problems. For example, the problem of climate change, where the main issue is the provision of water in conditions of increasing aridity. But they require a joint search for solutions and partnership, not confrontation.
In particular, according to the press service of the President of Uzbekistan, as a result of climate change over the past three years, the volume of water resources in Uzbekistan has decreased by 20%. Head of State Shavkat Mirziyoyev declared 2024 a period of transition to an emergency mode of work to save water in Uzbekistan. In this case, the primary task is concreting canals and irrigation ditches. It is estimated that in natural cover irrigation systems, an average of 14 billion cubic meters or 36% of water is lost per year without any economic benefit, and in some areas the figure exceeds 40%. In general, as a result of water losses, the republic’s economy loses $5 billion in income per year.
By the way, according to famous scientists, irrational use of water cannot always be perceived as the main factor in the problem of the disappearance of the Aral Sea. Dehydration of vast territories and desertification may also be the result of natural geographical changes over a very long historical period, and they are most likely associated with certain cycles. Human activity can only indirectly influence the acceleration or slowdown of some natural and climatic processes. As you know, the Caspian Sea and the Aral Sea, as well as the Black Sea, are part of the long-vanished ancient Paratethys Sea.
According to researcher B. Golubov (1937-2017), since the 1960s, in the area of internal water flow of Eurasia, shifts in the dynamics of all shells of the geographical environment and the circulation of the biosphere, including its social link, which were provoked by two unusual processes, are increasingly gaining strength. The first of these was the unprecedented rapid shallowing of the Aral Sea. It originated in 1961-1963 at a speed of 18-25 cm/year, in 1969 it was interrupted by a pulse of a short-term rise of 15 cm, and then intensified again to 70-100 cm/year and became like a whirlpool when the drain valve at the bottom of the tank was activated.
The second such process, which arose following the shallowing of the Aral Sea, was a sharp anomalous rise in the level of the Caspian Sea since 1977, which lasted continuously for 18 years, sometimes reaching extremely high values of 32-40 cm/year and since 1995 was replaced by a stage of calmer alternating fluctuations . In terms of its duration and speed, this rise turned out to be a record for the entire period of instrumental observations of the Caspian Sea level, which have been carried out since 1830. This rise, which unexpectedly appeared contrary to forecasts, also had a negative impact on the economy of the coastal spaces of the region, the strategy of which was recklessly built based on the progressive shallowing of the sea.
In an article published in the magazine “Space and Time” No. 16 for 2018, B. Golubov states: “It is customary to shift all responsibility for the shallowing of the Aral Sea to the exorbitant expansion of the area of irrigated land in the basin of this lake, which, however, raises great doubts. From 1940 to 1960 artificial water intake from the Amudarya and Syrdarya rivers (total flow 127 cubic km/year) increased from 52.3 to 63.89 cubic km meters/year, which, however, did not affect the level of the Aral Sea. From 1911 to 1960 it was consistently maintained near the plus 54 m mark. …Suddenly, by 1970, the influx of water to the Aral decreased to 42 cubic km meters/year, and its level fell by 2 m over 10 years. This forced urgent amendments to the climate calculations of the water balance of the sea. As a result, in 1980 it was recognized that by 1985 the average influx of surface water into the Aral Sea would decrease by another 15 cubic km/year, and sea level will drop to +46 m a.s.l. But in fact, the drop in sea level turned out to be more significant: in 1983, the level of the Aral Sea was 1.2 m lower than expected, that is, the climatological approach to assessing the situation did not justify itself.”
But, despite this, a persistent prejudice arose that the Aral catastrophe was caused by an exorbitant expansion of the areas of irrigated agriculture and could be prevented by transferring the waters of the Irtysh and Ob to the south. At the same time, the fact was ignored that the maximum permissible area of irrigated land for the Aral was 8 million hectares, and by 1961, irrigated land occupied no more than 6 million hectares here. That is, there were still 2 million hectares left in the “safety reserve”. Against this background, it is hypothesized that a kind of regulator of fluctuations in the levels of the Aral and Caspian Seas are variations in stress in the earth’s crust, ensuring the alternation of phases of absorption and extraction of groundwater. “Thus,” concludes B. Golubov, “the reason for the sharp drop in the level of the Aral Sea lies not in the gradual expansion of the area of irrigated land, but in something else: on the approaches to the sea, some unknown mechanisms began to operate to intercept the flow of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers.”
Summarizing this issue, we can come to the conclusion that the main way out of the situation is the intensive development of water-saving technologies, where it is necessary to listen to the opinions of scientists and specialists, as well as to study foreign experience more deeply.
Natural in this context are promising projects of cooperation between the countries of Central Asia and the European Union, as well as with states that are successfully solving similar problems. This is not a question of geopolitics, but an objectively necessary process of partnership, on the results of which the lives and well-being of millions of people in the region depend.
The countries of Central Asia freely choose the necessary services and technologies on the international innovation market, and this issue is not politicized in any way. The same thing happens in the field of science and education, when young people strive to gain knowledge at the best universities in Europe and America. It is natural that the air fleet of the countries in the region is provided by aircraft from Boeing or Airbus. Such examples can be continued in other areas.
In the context of the above, global forces should formulate a compromise formula for cooperation with the countries of Central Asia, rather than perceiving the region as another testing ground for geopolitical confrontation.
Foreign policy decisions made by the Central Asian states on current international issues are, first of all, based on their national interests, which are simultaneously associated with the interests of peace and security on a regional and global scale. This is partly the essence of the concept of integrity and indivisibility of security, which neutral Turkmenistan adheres to when implementing its foreign policy strategy.
In this context, it is not superfluous to recall that a number of Western think tanks perceived it as a major geopolitical victory when about 2 thousand US military personnel were stationed at military bases opened in October 2001 in Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyz Republic, and agreements were reached on the possible use by US Air Force aircraft from airfields in Tajikistan and Kazakhstan. Of course, victory meant a breakthrough of the so-called “Russian red line” in this region. As a leading analyst at the Jamestown Foundation research organization, Vladimir Socor, spoke candidly at the time: The “Red Line” with which the Russian and Soviet empires fenced off the countries of this region no longer exists.” In our opinion, most likely, such a “victory” was imaginary, since, unlike Eastern Europe, such a “red line” was unlikely to be established in this region. Moreover, during the period of the Soviet Union, there were not “red lines”, but there was a state border of the “red” empire.
The above-mentioned military bases were opened thanks to the political will of Central Asian leaders, and they pursued the goal of promoting the fight against international terrorism after the well-known events of 9/11. At the same time, in the opposing camps of the global confrontation, there was a negative perception of a number of statements regarding the long-term goals of the American presence in the region.
It should be taken into account that in the survey the duration of operation of military bases was, first of all, determined by the leadership of the states of the region themselves, of course, in the interests of the strategic security of the region, in order to avoid turning Central Asia into another testing ground for confrontation between the West and the East. Here, it is very logical that these issues were kept in the center of joint attention online with both the Americans and the Russians. Here it would be wrong to assess the situation as if the United States or Russia are claiming leadership in the region. The true masters of their territories are the Central Asian states themselves, and as a result of their own decisions, the above-mentioned bases were closed at the end of their tasks.
It is possible that the former US Ambassador to Moscow, Professor Jack Matlock, was somewhat disingenuous or mistaken when, in one of his interviews with a representative of the Russian press, he stated: “I think that we should immediately leave there as soon as the Russians make it clear to us.” A kind of bragging can characterize the maxim of an experienced American diplomat, an employee of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Butler, in his article published in the New York Times. In particular, Butler said: “The prize in the new Great Game in this part of the world is oil, the reserves of which are comparable to those of Saudi Arabia and Iraq. We are here for a long time…”
Despite the relevance of security issues and the necessary defense, the priorities for the Central Asian states are the tasks of socio-economic growth and entry into the ranks of developed countries of the world. In this regard, even support for neighboring Afghanistan implies, first of all, assistance in the socio-economic and humanitarian fields. Many examples can also be given in this regard.
Unfortunately, looking through the prism of existing historical stereotypes still contributes to fueling of the ideas of the new “Great Game 2.0”. This relegates the rational, and therefore constructive, aspect of the vision of great power partnership with the Central Asian region to the background. A distorted representation of geopolitical and geo-economic realities can do a disservice to the main consumers of analytical information – the official circles of each of the interested states.
In particular, on May 1, 2023, Voice of America brought up for expert discussion the provocative question “Can the countries of Central Asia replace Russia in the international resource market?” Already at the very beginning, that is, in the subtitle of the material, a ready-made answer is already given from the author S. Pribylov with reference to expert opinion: “Experts say that Kazakhstan and, together with it, other countries of Central Asia will be able to provide the world with energy resources and food, taking the place of Russia.”
Even such an authoritative expert, Ariel Cohen, a senior researcher at the Eurasian Center of the Atlantic Council, then issued the following forecast: “even those 150-170 billion cubic meters of gas per year, which Russia previously sold to Europe, can already be largely replaced by gas from Algeria, LNG from Nigeria, Norway and the USA.”
The extent to which such forecasts have come true is evidenced by data from European markets, which record an increase in the volume of purchases of Russian gas. In particular, as Forbes notes, “imports of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the European Union over the ten months of 2022 increased by 42% compared to the same period in 2021.”
In November 2023, the Russian publication Izvestia wrote: “Europe is seeking to abandon Russian fossil fuels, it seems, only in words. Imports of Russian LNG to the European Union have reached record volumes. Spain and Belgium have doubled their purchases.” According to the French company Kpler (specializing in collecting information on commodity markets), Russian LNG accounts for 16% of total liquefied gas imports into the EU. And Russia is the second largest supplier of this type of fuel to the European Union. In first place is the USA.
In addition, alternative gas suppliers, on whom the European Union had high hopes, have not fully managed to live up to them. After loud statements about the refusal of Russian gas, it turned out that no one else agrees to sell gas on preferential terms. For example, in mid-October 2022, Qatar agreed to sell its LNG to Germany, but in the amount of one tanker and with the condition that the re-export of this LNG to other European countries be prohibited. Actually, this is why most countries in Europe, despite loud statements, continue to buy Russian LNG through intermediaries with an overpayment of 3–5 times, because they have no other choice.
A team of analysts called “SpecialEurasia” specializes in risk assessments and geopolitical forecasting. On this basis, its experts advise government agencies and private companies on a wide range of issues regarding the situation in Eurasia, including strategic aspects of relations with Central Asia.
In an analytical material published on August 25, 2023 and dedicated to the upcoming “Central Asia + USA ” summit at the UN, the authors loudly stated that: “The upcoming US-Central Asia summit, scheduled for mid-September 2023, will be a loud confirmation of the enduring geopolitical significance region. The event serves as a stark reminder of the complex ties between world powers and the Central Asian republics, highlighting concerted strategies aimed at shaping the region’s development trajectory. In a world where the dynamic interaction of global forces has intensified, marked by the dynamics of confrontation between Russia and the West, as well as competition between Washington and Beijing, Central Asia is becoming a center where the streams of geopolitical confrontation and cooperation converge. This summit embodies the delicate balance of power struggles and shared ambitions that define the region’s key role in an ever-changing international landscape.”
In the section “Central Asia: Geopolitical Scenario,” the region is characterized as a center of international and regional power interests. The authors note that “the region has attracted the attention of global players such as the Russian Federation, the People’s Republic of China, the United States, Turkey, the Arab Gulf monarchies, India and Iran.”
According to SpecialEurasia , the United States + Central Asia summit is “a prime example of increased interest in the region, highlighting its key role in shaping global affairs. Indeed, in the past year, the region has been the epicenter of numerous events, such as summits and economic forums, aimed at promoting regional cooperation and bilateral relations with foreign players.”
As we see, the topic of “Great Game 2.0” continues to be attractive for assessing the development of relations of the Central Asian countries in the outside world, primarily with world powers. The report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British House of Commons, published in November 2023, entitled “Countries at a Crossroads: British Engagement in Central Asia,” was in the same spirit. This report is devoted to the agenda of the summit meeting of the British leadership with colleagues from Central Asian countries in the C5+1 format planned for 2024. In a word, it is felt that the readership and viewing audience, as well as part of the “netizen” who follow the events in Central Asia, are hungry for an “action” scenario.
In the report mentioned above, the authors lament the “ineffectiveness of British ministers’ interaction with the governments of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.” Ultimately, the report states a “lack of strategy” in this remote region for London. Practical recommendations for the Kingdom’s government are accompanied by a call for the authorities to “more actively counter the influence” of Russia and China in the region.
Although, in a much more business-like tone, in July last year, in an interview with the Kazinform agency , the British Commissioner for Trade for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Kenan Poleo said: “Central Asia is one of the most dynamic and rewarding regions for UK business. The region, with its fast-growing and diversified economy, provides huge opportunities for UK exporters and plays a vital role in helping the UK achieve its export ambitions.” In this regard, Mr. Poleo emphasized the huge potential of the region and the readiness of his country to support the further integration of Central Asia into the international system. “The UK offers world-class expertise in sectors such as green technology, mining, agriculture, financial products and services, and education. By partnering with the UK, Central Asian companies can benefit from our innovations,” he said.
However, a month later the publication “The Cradle” published material under the provocative title “Central Asia is the prime battlefield in the New Great Game.” Well, what can you do… I have no words! A similar spirit significantly prevails in the media spaces of both Europe and America. One thing is clear: such alarmist headlines in the Western press do not contribute to a constructive dialogue with Central Asia.
Measuring international relations only by the criteria of seizing the wealth of a region and geopolitical control over it today reflects an impossible task even for such a giant of world politics and economics as the United States. With all the power of the powerful, the possibility of their domination over the relatively weak does not bode well. Therefore, diplomats, especially experienced ones, must constantly remember the provisions of the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 and the fundamental principles then approved within the framework of the corresponding system of international relations. In this case, we have to recognize the sovereign equality of all states, especially those that are part of the UN system today.
The fact that while the great powers remain captive to the old stereotypes of the “Great Game” of the past, the modern states of the “New Central Asia” are confidently entering the wide expanses of international integration will be discussed in one of the following publications.
In conclusion, it would be very appropriate to quote an excerpt from the speech of the President of Turkmenistan Serdar Berdimuhamedov at the 78th session of the UN General Assembly on September 19, 2023:
“And I would like to conclude my speech with words from Magtymguly’s poem , which is called “Appeal to Humanity.” In it, the poet addresses the following life-affirming lines to people – his contemporaries and descendants:
“Whether a man sleeps or is awake, he will
deeply faithful to his plans.”
Let loyalty to creative plans, the ideals of peace, justice, and progress serve as the main and clear guideline in our joint work.”
Dr. Begench Karaev deals with the problems of philosophy of law and politics. He is the author of a number of textbooks and monographs, including “Political analysis and strategic planning”, “Political analysis: problems of theory and methodology: (Experience in the study of modern Central Asian society)” and “Traditional and modern in the political life of Central Asian society (experience of political analysis)”. /// nCa, 8 January 2024