Tariq Saeedi
The geo-economic centrality in the Eurasian landmass belongs to Central Asia. This is not a theoretical surmise – it is an undeniable truth.
It became necessary to underline this truth because certain quarters are still treating Central Asia as appendix to their own ambitions.
As a matter fact, this short analytical piece is kind of an extension of the research article penned by A D Frank. Published by the Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars in its issue 2, Volume 24 of 1992, the article was titled: The Centrality of Central Asia.
A D Frank (Andre Gunder Frank – 1929-2005) was a German-American sociologist and economic historian who promoted dependency theory after 1970 and world-systems theory after 1984.
He existed in the fast lane of the intellectual highway, teaching at 17 universities spanning North America, Latin America and Europe. He gave lectures in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, German and Dutch.
Dr. Frank wrote widely on the economic, social and political history and contemporary development of the world system, the industrially developed countries, and especially of the Third World and Latin America. He produced over 1,000 publications in 30 languages.
The Centrality of Central Asia is a thoroughly researched article, based on 124 citations and sources. The download link to this article of Dr. Frank is available at this page:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14672715.1992.10412984
The entire article, more of a research paper, is worth going through.
Here are just a few quotes:
“[N]ational(ist) or not, historical writing or written history has been overly Eurocentric. This Euro- (or Western) centrism has marked and (de)formed not only historical writing about the West, but also about the East and the South. Even many non-Western historians writing about their own countries and cultures have been infected by the virus of Eurocentrism. It blinds people to Central Asia and especially to anything important or good coming out of it. Sinocentric, Indiacentric, Persiacentric, Islamocentric, and other histories also omit adequate reference to Central Asia and even to its large influence on their own histories. “Civilized” peoples write their own histories about themselves and not about their “barbarian” neighbors, whom they consider beyond the pale.”
[…]
“Central Asia is truly the missing link in Eurasian and world history.”
[…]
“Central Asia is also central to any attempt at systematic or systemic analysis of the history of the world system.”
[…]
“[T]he millennial centrality of Central Asia in international relations and in world history, not to mention world-system history, goes virtually unnoticed.”
* * *
The world is at the stage where the geo-economic realities dictate the direction of geopolitics but some of us insist on keeping geopolitics in the lead position. — This, of course, is fully debatable and each side can defend its position quite forcefully.
President Bill Clinton, during his first term, perhaps in 1994, proposed a new Economic Security Council with a geoeconomic mandate to complement the traditionally geopolitical concerns of America’s National Security Council.
Some academics including Gerard Toal and Timothy Luke noted that Clinton ‘downplayed the issue of geopolitics and focused instead on geoeconomic questions’
Unfortunately, the Neocons brought the idea to a grinding halt.
Lest we forget, Clinton presided over the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history.
Regardless, the geo-economic centrality of Central Asia is abundantly clear.
The Middle Corridor became possible only because Central Asia, for decades, had been developing its infrastructure for transit, transportation, and connectivity. Had there been no infrastructure, there would have been no Middle Corridor.
Because of the geo-economic centrality of Central Asia, the movement of cargo between China and Europe is now cheaper, safer, and faster compared to the sea routes.
Actually, this is just the start of something monumental.
The deserts and wind corridors in Central Asia are capable of producing electricity that can meet the requirements in the East and West, from South Asia to Europe.
The non-hydrocarbon minerals of Central Asia can keep the technologically advanced machinery and gadgets affordable for the world.
The nearly 100% educated population of Central Asia that is predominantly young, can manage and run the outsourcing hubs of any kind.
The governments in Central Asia are focused on digital economy and e-commerce. With their disciplined approach and unwavering commitment, they will reach there faster than many.
The road and rail mega projects are just around the corner to connect seamlessly China, Afghanistan, South Asia, Central Asia, Caucasus, Türkiye, and Europe. The connectivity of this contiguous space with Russia and Iran exists already. — This is the Eurasian landmass.
* * *
There are endless ways to highlight that the geo-economic centrality in the Eurasian landmass belongs to Central Asia.
With this in mind, let us refer to a Staff Discussion Note of IMF.
It is titled: Geoeconomic Fragmentation and the Future of Multilateralism.
The authors/editors are: Shekhar Aiyar, Jiaqian Chen, Christian H Ebeke, Roberto Garcia-Saltos, Tryggvi Gudmundsson, Anna Ilyina, Alvar Kangur, Tansaya Kunaratskul, Sergio L. Rodriguez, Michele Ruta, Tatjana Schulze, Gabriel Soderberg, and Juan P Trevino.
Published on 15 January 2023, it is available from this link:
The summary of this Staff Discussion Note says:
“After several decades of increasing global economic integration, the world is facing the risk of policy-driven geoeconomic fragmentation (GEF). This note explores the ramifications. It identifies multiple channels through which the benefits of globalization were earlier transmitted, and along which, conversely, the costs of GEF are likely to fall, including trade, migration, capital flows, technology diffusion and the provision of global public goods. It explores the consequences of GEF for the international monetary system and the global financial safety net. Finally, it suggests a pragmatic path forward for preserving the benefits of global integration and multilateralism.”
The entire paper is useful and interesting.
From our point of view, the geo-economic fragmentation (GEF), pointed by the IMF team is perhaps repairable, at least in part, by acknowledging and supporting the geo-economic centrality of Central Asia.
Whether it can salvage the globalization in its original form or not, is a question that cannot be answered meaningfully now. Nevertheless, whatever form or shape of globalization emerges from the present chaos, would perhaps be a lasting thing. /// nCa, 4 September 2024