The Influence of Internal Threats on Foreign Policy in Authoritarian States: Central Asia

CEU eTD Collection

The The Influence of Internal Threats on ForeignPolicy in In partial fulfillment theof requirements the for degree Master of Arts of Authoritarian States:Central Asia Submitted toCentral European University Department of Political Science Supervisor: Supervisor: FumagalliMatteo Budapest, Hungary by BakarJikiaby 2010

CEU eTD Collection Abstract outputs theiroutputs of states. author by faced challenges, states, Asian Central threats internal to relation of in orientation political their particularly outputs policy foreign on developments political Domestic powers. greater with alliances towards region the of states weak hitches environment competitive this in navigation successful of Difficulty year. every intense more and more becoming is which object an into region the transforming interest powers. world of interests for lure excellent an represent states Asian Central developed less in located resources The

i mportance of the Caspian region is difficult to to difficult is region Caspian the of mportance

sn itnie c intensive Using

T he collapse of the Soviet Union attracted wide international wide attracted Union Soviet the of collapse he

tra rgms n eta Ai dtrie oeg policy foreign determine Asia Central in regimes itarian s suy t study ase i

of rivalry between world powers, the rivalry the powers, world between rivalry of e ae rsace te nlec of influence the researches paper he overestimate . I . t argues that domestic that argues t Vs hydrocarbon Vast . CEU eTD Collection Acknowledgements DanielaParusinski, Jakub Srinic, MatejPavol Kurian, Hardos others. and suggestions: and comments their for Workshop I path. unfamiliar and tricky this on me assisted who Fumagalli Matteo professor coordinator my thank to like would I

am also also grateful ii

Professor Attila Folsz Attila Professor to all participants of the Thesis Writing Writing Thesis the of participants all to ,

fellow MA students students MA fellow

CEU eTD Collection Tableof

References 8 Conclusions 7 Turkmenistan’sPositive6 HowBecame Neutrality: it Possible Kyrgyzstan:Failed5 Multivectorism StrengtheningUzbekistan: 4 Karimov’sDictatorial Grip Methodology 3 Alignments 2 inInternationalRelations Introduction1 Limitations Data Research Methods SelectionCase Research Strategy Research Question TheoreticalThe Framework: Omnibalancing DomesticAnarchy and the Insecurity Dilemma Systemic Approach and the Security Dilemma

...... Contents

......

...... iii

......

63 59 50 42 34 27 33 31 31 28 28 27 1 15

9 1 7 9

CEU eTD Collection 1 Introduction1 etoe aoe ee ciey nae i cl wr r pwr politics. power era war cold in engaged actively were above mentioned Asia o fall the after only law international Central to paid been had attention less However 2009). (Lehoucq America Latin or 2005) (Marschall Africa as such world respective their of behavior policy A ruling elite for be relation the expect I output policy foreign and threats th establish to is thesis this of objective The controversial falsified and elections in from power of transfer the cho and elections run Democracies l methods governing and regime the of type the on depending primarily countries different in differently accomplished is it However power. retain to basically is government any for goal main the that accepted widely is It st different implement strong to compared ones. entities weaker goals their achieve to Trying relative strength. their to according significant group are same the there to belonging still states of vary, actions in policy similarities foreign in behavior state of patterns Although

large

amount amount achieving goals, domestic of research has been conducted on weak autocratic states and foreign foreign and states autocratic weak on conducted been has research of

tween

the s autocracies autocracies

two as I find the foreign policy to be considered a tool a considered be to policy foreign the find I as two of

as wellas governmentcapture. as other of forms

f the Soviet Union while many states of other regions other of states many while Union Soviet the f edr i hsoial non historically in leaders o particular state particular e government se namely 1 countries n s usually is argely affected by state‘s relative strength. strength. relative state‘s by affected argely

e link between two dispositions: dispositions: two between link e regime survival.regime s , specifically in choosing a strong ally.strong a choosing in specifically , s

for for hrceie b rvls coups, revolts, by characterized

the s hy eae ujcs of subjects became they as

iie pro o tm while time of period limited - eortc ein o the of regions democratic

e rategies rategies internal

thesis of

CEU eTD Collection International Relations International Arvanitopoulos, 1 increased explanatory power of the paper if my assumptions are correct. All three post three All correct. are assumptions my if paper the of power explanatory increased for case test a as included is and shift policy a conducted not has regime Turkmen brutal, and Uzbekistan makes which su observed well be Kyrgyzstan to has orientation policy foreign in shift clear aresearch, the purposes of the Additionally,violence. for of means on monopoly and na authoritarian state, the be will which omnibalancing, by set criteria to according made was selection the concerned, are themselves countries i USSR) the of fall (the point starting authoritarian on perfect research a Asia Central consider I Uzbekistan. and Turkmenistan research given the For have successfu them of most which orientation policy foreign their of terms in alternatives of range the resurgent influence began for competition the and interest worldwide attracted has resources vast with th Following policy behavior. discloses

For more information on rivalry in Central Central in rivalry on information more For

involving

domestic interests of Central Asian leaders as main determinants of their foreign foreign their of determinants main as leaders Asian Central of interests domestic Russia.

e fall of the Soviet Union the emergence of independent states in the region the in states independent of emergence the Union Soviet the of fall e p oesr f nentoa Politics International of rofessor lly used for theirlly own benefit. for used

, uh e paes s h Uie Sae, h E, hn ad recently and China EU, the States, United the as players key such 1 available at at available

nrae itrs poie laes f e independent new of leaders provided interest Increased td o ti proe Atog big vn oe uhrtra and authoritarian more even being Although purpose. this for ited

ture of the government, lack government, the of ture have I regimes

http://www.hri.org/MFA/thesis/winter98/geopolitics.html used selected

as all five entities located in the region had the same the had region the in located entities five all as sa e te article the see Asia as a theoretical framework of framework theoretical a as n terms of state formation and development. As far as far As development. and formation state of terms n t h Pneo Uiest ad ed f p of head and University Panteion the at

he css rm eta Ai: Kyrgyzstan, Asia: Central from cases three

n h Junl f oeg Studies Foreign of Journal the in or low level level low or

the of domestic legitimacy domestic of area study

lanning at Institute of of Institute at lanning

o conducting for : weakness of weakness :

entities by Constantine Constantine with - CEU eTD Collection vehicles and opened fire into the crowd (Cool crowd the into fire opened vehicles and 2 rdal ad fetvl cm t a ed n 05 following opposition 2005 in end an to came effectively and gradually US territory. its on troops American stationing anti GUAM app has policy foreign Uzbek in shift thefirst of sign Clear A p.10). 1999: (Pikulina region the in stability and peace maintaining for essential as Russia proclaiming Karimov Islam president 1992, in Treaty‖ Security ―Collective the Russia entering accepted government Uzbek 90s of beginning the In existence: policy its foreign of decades two first of the for forth terms and back bouncing been In has country the orientation methods. governing harsh with regime authoritarian and extr an developed has Uzbekistan 1991, in independence acquiring After 2009 to USSR the of collapse the after independence their from beginning period time with the covers research autocracies The population. the within legitimacy enjoying into not regimes repressive developed have all starts, different with away getting of fact the or democratic governance experience Despitehaving statehood of even proper before. the em have opposition, on crackdowns governments respective their of nature count soviet

Hundreds of peaceful civilians were killed during the protest when the security forces surrounded them in armored armored in them surrounded forces security the when protest the during killed were civilians peaceful of Hundreds

re a idpnet tts olwn te isle f h Sve Uin without Union Soviet the of dissolve the following states independent as erged 2

- demonstration in the city of Andijon resulting in ousting of the US base from base US the of ousting in resulting Andijon of city the in demonstration usa bok n 99 n bcm te S ly n a o tro i 2001, in terror on war in ally US the became and 1999 in block Russian is uh ie tes n h rgo ae not are region the in others like much ries

grave

human rights violations and controversial elections. Theycontroversial elections. and violations rights human ey 2008). ,

u cn eiiey rvd a oi rcr of record solid a provide definitely can but 3

- ze rltos tre t deteriorate to started relations Uzbek el known well eared when the country joined country the when eared

aio‘ cakon on crackdown Karimov‘s

o te democratic the for emely repressive emely dominance, n the year the CEU eTD Collection region. However unlike Uzbek and Kyrgyz leaders, Niyazov never really sought sought really never Niyazov leaders, Kyrgyz and Uzbek unlike However region. unprecedente was individual of cult a on also based non and legitimacy low of terms in above mentioned cases two with common in much had country his though conduc never has Niyazov Saparmurat president Turkmen leave Kyrgyzstan. to asked were forces US Russia 2009 February In with territory. Kyrgyz on base agreement force air its allowing an signed president the 2003 in However campaign. Afghan with thewar western interest rediscovered onbecoming the terror, of one ma Kyrgyzstan Uzbekistan, like Much state. superpresidential a into country the transformed and ways reformist his from off backed Akayev worsened. have west with relations 90s of midd the in However reforms. democratic of support financial for designated funds other attracted and money western to access the government Kyrgyz gave institutions financial liberal a build to commitment and de desire public His 90s. of beginning the in Treaty‖ Cooperation and ―Friendship the and Treaty‖ Security ―Collective the to support his giving importance 106 1995 (Pomfret Asia‖ of ―Switzerland as country was his Akayev promoting president hand one On west. and east both with cooperation for pushing Unlike to between relations twostart states. new the giving Russia with treaty a signed again Karimov year same Later territory. Uzbek

orc i te er o Ai de mjr etr atnin Mmesi o several of Membership attention. western major drew Asia of heart the in mocracy zeitn Krysa hs ikd f i atmt t bid dmcai state democratic a build to attempts in off kicked has Kyrgyzstan Uzbekistan,

of democracy and development while flirting with Russia on the other hand by hand other the on Russia with flirting while development and democracy of

- democratic government. Moreover, authoritarian rule in Turkmenistan, in rule authoritarian Moreover, government. democratic

ee cmae t ohr i the in others to compared even d ted a serious policy shift even shift policy serious a ted - 8, nelnn the underlining 18), in US in inallies le CEU eTD Collection state scholars.differs state systemic from perceptions of 1992). Job 1991, (David power maintaining towards directed are efforts their all and rulers respective their pri a become of challenges domestic high, extremely are costs states such in power As losing power. for fighting factions the of one as government actual an with often and etc) opposition radical rebels, (minorities, challenges domestic strong with system international the of disorder the reassembles always almost structure internal their that such is states world third of nature the However constraints. domestic significant without field. the of scholars later and Walt Waltz, of eyes the in state the of understanding conceptual the is this to reason The cases. above in observed variation to explanation an provide to unable be my is issue given a at look a take to want I reason The threats. internal particularly variables, internal to attention draw and paradigm systemic the beyond look to necessary it find I questions these answer To sa the government? developed have and region same the to belong point starting same the had states Uzbek three all when governments and Kyrgyz of inconsistency and policy foreign Turkmen of consistency the for ind Which following: the answer is cases three these of will behavior thesis the that question The behavior Kyrgyz irrational. and seems Uzbek alone, orientation policy foreign of perspective the From Nations on thecountryUnited declaration and remainedthat the in emphasized later Neutrality‖ ―Positive declared state The patronage. superpower

o te te nentoa sse i aaci wt sae a uiay actors unitary as states with anarchic is system international the them For

Consequently lief that observation of international developments alone is alone developments international of observation that lief

h rtoae eid eiin aig in making decision behind rationale the 5

ependent variable is responsible responsible is variable ependent e atoiain ehd of methods authoritarian me,

way death. president‘s until concerning in terms of of terms in

the independence, oeg policy foreign

hr world third ority for for ority

CEU eTD Collection keepi in contribution significant expect they which from states powerful with align to try mostly regimes weak Internally external. de commonly, and more internal and groups: processes democratic minorities, ethnic main manipulate to ability two the have governments into sorted be can strategies th achieve to Trying security regime into transformed is security state and irrelevant becomes state the of elements all including security of definition Classical power. maintaining towards efforts all redirects and peace establish the to inability and that state the of arguing weakness and paradigm domestic from emerging threats on focusing oriented, internally is dilemma insecurity the dilemma, security classical the Unlike phenomenon. Securit National Dilemma: Insecurity ―The in Job Brian by developed Dilemma‖ ―Insecurity The making. my of not state for than is security regime into security rather state Transforming security. regime elite with later assimilating ruling the of power the for essential is which ally an countrygets the primary. Therefore as theyconsider which threats internal paper policy foreign in orientation their choosing while that believe I as study, case intensive using behavior policy foreign thesis, the In

ng the regimes in power in Central Asia as well. During the Tajik civil war the the war civil Tajik the During well. as Asia Central in power in regimes the ng ,

primarily act according to to according act primarily (Job 1992). (Job I will focus on detection of internal threats to the regime and their links with links their and regime the to threats internal of detection on focus will I hi srgl fr security for struggle their

eir goals, e goals, eir

eo a tog ersie paau ad iiay ocs Externally, forces. military and apparatus repressive strong a velop in y ,

ek uhrtra sae smlr o ns nldd in included ones to similar states authoritarian weak lites of such countries countries such of lites

hr Wrd tts i 1992 in States‖ World Third concerns over concerns Pwru atr hv pae sgiiat oe in role significant played have actors Powerful . 6

survival of their regimes by elimination of elimination by regimes their of survival implement various strategies various implement order creates insecurity which insecurity creates order

thoroughly explains this this explains thoroughly neet generally, interests . Such .

the CEU eTD Collection sponsored composed Opposition” Tajik 3 agru, nenl het n blne gis i b a alac wt a etra actor (David1991) external an with alliance an by it against balance and threat internal dangerous, the unitary a as state the to not threat a to given is weight more much however remains threat of phenomenon the see we As p.235). 1991: power‖(David in them keep to necessary is what do to likely most is power outside which to as leaders World Third of calcul ―rational a represents country world third a by made realignment or alignment on decision the that asserts David omnibalancing. for factor triggering a as introduced weak Applying however, systemic by purely behavior same the variables. explain to try which theories realist original primary as them correspondingly Job‘s to compared earlier year one published was work David‘s Although thesis. the David Steven by omnibalancing use will explanation an for looking am I As intervention the to from Russian military. to maintain Nabiyev thecountry, managed of Rahmon president

Tajik civil war civil Tajik

uig eie I ti dsoiin hr Wrd edr coe o eit h most the resist to chose leaders World Third disposition this In regime. ruling

states of the third world, meeting assumptions of insecurity dilemma, which can be can which dilemma, insecurity of assumptions meeting world, third the of states

by the the by

David‘s theoryDavid‘s

as it focuses purely on alliance on purely focuses it as fn o find I – .

United Nations. United 1992 places e places - inducements 1997 was fought between government forces of President Rahman Nabiyev and the “ the and Nabiyev Rahman President of forces government between fought was 1997 mn

ibalancing a better applicable framework framework applicable better a ibalancing of both liberal democratic reformists and Islamists. It has ended by the peace agreement peace the by ended has It Islamists. and reformists democratic liberal both of to selected to mphasis on importance of intrastate of importance on mphasis

oeg policy foreign

of case

alliance decisions in selected Central Asian states, I states, Asian Central selected in decisions alliance ,

3 developed in 1991 in developed

politics, the dependent variable of the research. the of variable dependent the politics, is more relevant as it was originally designed for was it as for originally relevant designed is more 7

conduct

n hr wrd states world third in ,

as a theoretical framework of framework theoretical a as developments his position o ti priua study particular this for

and considers and largely thanks

actor challenging ,

but to but United United ation ,

CEU eTD Collection

since independence in relation to internal threats. The conclusion will summarize the the summarize emphasize set results, research.and objectives for findings, further will conclusion The threats. internal to relation in independence since empir cover will chapters three following The objectives. thesis achieving in aid they how and applicable are they why arguing selection, case as well as design research and methods of justification cover and theoretica a as Steven Omnibalancing introduce David‘s also will chapter The world. contemporary the of feature a conceptual as dilemma insecurity new, the and security to approaches contemporary introduce realis of part conceptual a as dilemma security the define and relations international in aligning to approaches classical review covers briefly The order: following the in structured be will thesis My

ability

to answer questions questions answer to the the content of the research. The first section of the second second the of section first The research. the of content ical data reviewing international developments in selected states selected in developments international reviewing data ical concerning t perceptions. The second part of the chapter will chapter the of part second The perceptions. t l framework of the thesis thesis the of framework l

foreign policy orientation. The third chapter will chapter third The orientation. policy foreign 8

first chapter is an introduction. It introduction. an is chapter first explaining

t relevancy its chapter

will

CEU eTD Collection alliances, their types and possible outcomes. For him the absence of central authority is authority central of absence the him For outcomes. possible and types their alliances, Intern ―Theory of ideas develop to first the was paradigm Kenneth realist Waltz In success. on chances state‘s significantly increasing s its maximize to tries state each and limited are resources the When relations. international of parts undividable are Alliances withoutsignificant unitary actor system international the The perceives Walt. approach Stephen later and Waltz Kenneth as such scholars realist early of ideas on based is politics alliance particular in and relations international in approach systemic The Systemic and onfocuses aligning third in world regimes. behavior state to approaches contemporary with accordance in is Omnibalancing which Omnibalancing David‘s di insecurity new, the on focus and security of fundamental a as dilemma in security concept the of definition the explain and politics alliance e complicated more to simplistic rather from evolution its display literature, realist review will part first The consequences. possible and types incentives, its relations, international in aligning on literature the reviews first chapter The Alignments2 Internationin

Approach the Security and Dilemma the realist world. The second part will introduce a contemporary understanding contemporary a introduce will part second The world. realist ational Politics‖ published in 1979 Waltz has developed main incentives developed of main in has 1979 ational published Politics‖ Waltz concerning constraints is alRelations

sd s tertcl rmwr o te thesis. the of framework theoretical a as used motives ecurity, successful alliance provides a powerful tool powerful a provides alliance successful ecurity,

domestic 9

of states in relation to alliances. In his work his In alliances. to relation in states of s nrh while anarchy as lemma. The third part will review Steven Steven review will part third The lemma.

ally

(Waltz 1979; 1987) Walt paain o sae eair in behavior state of xplanations considering a a considering state as a a as state .

CEU eTD Collection The disposition disposition The with. dealt be to necessary interests own its has each where players regional influential imp system Such balancing. external encourages hand other was war cold primarily. capabilities military and economic su bi in balancing that asserts Waltz ne the to birth a gave bi the to end an put has Union Soviet the of collapse The dominance. when war cold the types balancing multi later the is it as power, with allies state sides choosing when that Power‖ suggests of ―Balance arena. international Waltz‘s on of development economic or military power Waltz to maximum security universalat minimum domination and voluntarily assessment uni are states Waltz To resolution. conflict to alternative an always is war that violence.implies This with monopolyof have not means governingthe body a does on system. international the of principle ordering the

perpowers - polar systems according to the number of powers present and defines differences in differences defines and present powers of number the to according systems polar

according to its perceptions on steps necessary for for necessary steps on perceptions its to according represent connotes an w h being being suggests i the arms race between the U the between race arms l e

the

competing for for competing weaker out of of out weaker w world order world w

ihr nenl r exte or internal either spe that the government is not con not is government the that U which

. cific S ht tog iiay oe ad cnm aoe r ual to unable are alone economy and power military strong that .

and USSR where engaged in a continuous competition for for competition continuous a in engaged where USSR and

to threatens it. He makes a distinction between bi between distinction a makes He it. threatens

each system. A classic bi classic A system. each - polar system is internally oriented oriented internally is system polar ,

with w strong two dominance, dominance,

more players actively engaged in global politics. politics. global in engaged actively players more ,

. while later assumes alliances withwhile actors assumes other later S I 10 ndeed .

nl aacn. h fre ipis the implies former The balancing. rnal and the USSR. Multi USSR. the and entities ae efforts make T , one of the main characteristics of the of characteristics main the of one , he strained in decision making and acts and making decision in strained international

(Waltz 1979) o aac aant h stronger the against balance to - polar polar success is h peec o more of presence the lies world o aiie hi own their maximize to system is anarchic, it anarchic, is system - . Methods . polar system on the on system polar

insinuating was present during during present was . The . - polar system and and system polar tary actors. Such actors. tary

success is success , -

according polar and polar

that that ,

two the

at CEU eTD Collection aac against balance other encourage will components above of each in increase more obviously are intentions aggressive a then threatening less is weaker arms relatively defensive with primarily armed actor powerful a as also is capabilities defensive and offensive of Distinction p5). 1987: (Walt away far allia of choices determinants the of one and as proximity capability introduces Walt offensive intentions. proximity, perceived capabilities, overall components: four into power main the is power fa casual not and threat that argues and threat of phenomenon the towards the shifts 1987). focus (Walt to used as harm well aid canWalt be and isneutral to as itself evaluation the beyond goes He idea. original Waltz‘s to improvement an as considers he which assumption an answerto questions Alli of ―Origins in Walt Stephen influential. Walt by presented presence their increase to region geopolitics, and resources as Centralmore influence. gainAsia and relative case of also strength The be consideredcan an cooperation seek states Therefore survival. guarantee

an attempt of external balancing by world powers. As it is it As powers. world by balancing external of attempt an denoting ctor

of choices in alliance politics. ―Balance of Threat‖ divides the sole variable of variable sole the divides Threat‖ of ―Balance politics. alliance in choices of

such that the power located closer is more threatening than the one which is is which one the than threatening more is closer located power the that one z

concerning

were vastly criticized by later authors, the theory was largely largely was theory the authors, later by criticized vastly were

of pure capabilities of states being balanced being states of capabilities pure of

hetnn fre I Wl‘ ve to ye o sae behavior state of types two view Walt‘s In force. threatening ossig infcn offensive significant possessing oiat playe dominant ances‖ (1987) challenges original ideas of K. Waltz. Tying Waltz. K. of ideas original challenges (1987) ances‖ , alliance formation enhancing impending rs 11

hi rltv srnt. lhuh arguments Although strength. relative their

ek omn rud ih tts f the of states with ground common seek

and

its s el Acrig o h theory, the to According well. as d form alliances to increase their increase to alliances form d

determines, with comes up Walt potential. entities eminent ,

arguing that the force the that arguing to seek alliances and alliances seek to F

inally in terms of energy of terms in ,

tts with states crucial nce ,

CEU eTD Collection for achieving it by giving in giving by it achieving for the by motivated supposedly are Both balancing. of behavior opposite the as bandwagoning of interpretation narrow the revisionist. are states the introduces he contrary quo that out points Schweller Waltz. in contributions previous howeverar paradigm realist the expanding of importance the acknowledges (1994) Schweller Randall can states align power of withany the ideology against thethreatening balance to force. variab ideological to value no to little gives Walt and actors both damaging up, break may alliance relationship, the exploit to attempts power relatively on alliance in engage States balanced exchange. equal implies hand other the on Détente benefits. of share a on hands the get and power dominant the of victory the from be can alliance such for incentive The risks. increased of because benevolent and loyal be will it that power allied in trust requires it as risky more is bandwagoning that asserts Walt strong the with allies state vulnerable a case given a In exchange. unequal on based is hand one on Bandwagoningalliance. the in exchange détente. and bandwagoning between are bandwagoning and balancing

and leaving them more exposed to to exposed more them leaving all are satisfied with what they possess, how can we explain war and conflict? In conflict? and war explain we can how possess, they what with satisfied are all

terms and risks in such relations are relations such in risks and terms Moreover, this this Moreover,

since concept of ―balance of interests‖ and accepts the fact that somethat the fact accepts and interests‖ of ―balance of concept to threats rather than deterring them. Against this, Schweller this, Against them. deterring than rather threats to struggle

if withdraw will not be an option option an be not will withdraw archetype the main goal of states is the maintenance of the status the of maintenance the is states of goal main the external hazards external

status quo status for security, but bandwagoning is seen as a strategy a as seen is bandwagoning but security, for D feec between ifference gues against ideas of Walt and his predecessor his and ofWalt ideas against gues

in alliance politics. He also draws a dist a draws also He politics. alliance in 12

considerably

bias in structural realist analysis leads to leads analysis realist structural in bias e i alac pltc. codn t him to According politics. alliance in les . Another significant argument is that is argument significant Another . one

cetn te subordina the accepting

lo h two the wer. In case if the dominant the if case In wer. n ae f h contrary, the of case in

s h ntr o the of nature the is h dsr t benefit to desire the e role. te inction

CEU eTD Collection These These unitary are States without actors b) anarchic; is system International a) points: main three on agree scholars above of all However Schweller. by introduced ones complicated more to Waltz b defined behavior policy foreign of explanations simple relatively from changing had been formation alliance to approaches systemic chapter, the in it reviewed have we As notinterests, powers or threats. internationa in balancing Therefore or possess they what secure to whatthey increase value: either pay to willing are they prices to according H p.74). 1994: self usually is bandwagoning of goal the self is balancing of aim ―the that argues

   

ovs r peaos te vle ht hy oet uh oe hn ht they what than wolves approach makes This possess. dangerous. extremely more much covert they what value they predators, are Wolves more ar Jackals maintainingfor status their increasing quo or possession both costs low only pay to willing are They group. whole the of weakest are Lambs powers.great and players quo status are Lions value. they what increase to price small a only but po they what maintain to costs high pay will They powers. satisfied are Lions points

to to extend. entail meaningful meaningful as dfns or an rus f tts aig hm fe animals after them naming states of groups main four defines also e e ready to pay high costs costs payhigh readyto e

that

actors

domestic constraints; c) The main goal main The c) constraints; domestic

will security trytheir as much possible. maximize to

l relations according to Schweller is balancing of of balancing is Schweller to according relations l - - preservation of values already possessed, while possessed, already values of preservation extension: to obtain values coveted‖ (Schweller coveted‖ values obtain to extension: t o defend themselves but are ready to pay evenpay to ready are themselvesbut defend o 13

of each state is state each of

security. ssess

to y CEU eTD Collection world.realist criticized arguments above well as mobilize to Accelerated states other on pressure put infrastructure, neighbors. their of req alliances by schedule insecurity mobilization of feelings by war the into forced were WWI in involved powers that argue view this of Supporters dilemma. security World First the of Outbreak anarchy 1950 (Herz a ― as process the identified originally Idealism‖ Political and Realism ―Political work his called is actions counter causing by it reduces actually situat a Therefore détente. or violentconflict competition endless an entering alliances players other response, a As others. imp to trying and securitytheir for fearful being By conflict. maximize to attempts But hi rato i security in reaction chain

, rnfr i it a icesd ocr fr te players other for concern increased an into it transform

h dfnto of definition the p260 ;

). n eeec to reference in

Jervis it

h scrt dlma eand s h cnrl ocp o the of concept central the as remained dilemma security the might eventually lead to its deterioration and can even cause a even can deterioration and its to lead eventually might ie fr usa ih t rltvl udvlpd railway undeveloped relatively its with Russia for uired lo emphasized also War is considered by many scholars as a a as scholars many by considered is War n pwr cuuain asd y nrhc environment anarchic by caused accumulation power and

h otra o te is Wrd a wr widely were War World First the of outbreak the i capable, if , ion when 14 ih h psiiiy of possibility the with

that

state‘s attempts to minimize minimize to attempts state‘s similarly a country a a

rove it, rove security dilemma. John Herz in in Herz John dilemma. security try to to try , trying to enhance to trying , (Tuchman 1962) (Tuchman actors

o h same the do transform Jri 1976 (Jervis consequence

become threats to threats become ation . Although .

security perils or form form or p.76 ;

into a a into of the of

in in ). ‖ ,

CEU eTD Collection majority of rulers were rulers majority of overthrown by domestic o where world third the in common more became power of changes coercive Secondly, world. third the of countries developing in place took which within of majority wars states by outnumbered largely been have states between wars WWII the of end like less countries other into interventions military made law international for respect increasing as well as organizations interstate stronger of development the Firstly, weakness followingfor reasons: internal for control threatening more to being often challenges unable was state a of understanding Simplistic level. the systemic from threats than dangerous more far became dimension internal from originating War, Cold the of powers great Unlike explain predictpower or to their behavior in world and differe a relations developed studies international security of understanding Contemporary complicated. more much itself system the making weight more gained powers regional where world interdependent Bi particular. in security the by shortlyinternationalrelations and of understandingthe largelyaltered SovietUnion the of dissolve followed War Cold the of end The system. the of members threatening it increase to state the of attempt security an is the dilemma of emergence the for precondition main the above, reviewed have we As Anarchy Domestic Insecurity the and Dilemma

. It became obvious that early realist perceptions of states as unitary as states of perceptions realist early that obvious became It . - oa syste polar

tasomd no multi into transformed m t prah oad cnrl cos f the of actors central towards approach nt

for third world regimes considering their relative their considering regimes world third for o wa sae o te hr wrd challenges world third the of states weak for a a newly 15

adversaries

scrt ad rtc isl fo other from itself protect and security s

emerged , notby, external interventions.

world order. - oa wt mr globalized more with polar

players ly. Since the Since ly. verwhelming verwhelming anarchic

lacked

CEU eTD Collection For the complete list of coups see Annex 2b 2b see Annex coups listof complete the For 4 of definition Classical actors. domestic powerful from resistance provoke they more the to contrary in interests primarily, threats domestic alter to leaders world third wellbeing encourage own their for concerns and experience empirical the disposition given the In preside of overthrow theIslamiststateestablishment of for called openly Uzbekistan a been has extremism religious forbidding Iran, in revolution Islamist 1979 of example known many in concern major a is extremism Religious the of power on grip the undermine can movement secessionist successful state, independent of collapse the not is minorities of aim Although origins. ethnic on conflicts unresolved still of examples represent respective post weak of emerg SovietUnion, the collapseof the issue.After representanother conflicts Ethnic regime violentover changes 10 such, of attempts in Coup

For coups in Africa see Monty G. Marschall G. Monty see Africa in coups For

t e eid f 1946 of period he ruling d’état

in myraid cases myraid in

regime. challenge in Central Asia as well. Armed opposition in Ferghana valley in in valley Ferghana in opposition Armed well. as Asia Central in challenge

ertre. aon Krbk, bhza Suh sei ad Transnistria and Ossetia South Abkhazia, Karabakh, Nagorno territories. is arguably the most most the arguably is - soviet republics encouraged minorities to seek improved status for their their for status improved seek to minorities encouraged republics soviet

hr mn sae lk Uad, iei ad oo ae experienced have Togo and Nigeria Uganda, like states many where

- 2004 has experienced 286 successful or or successful 286 experienced has 2004 . More governing elites try to to try elites governing More .

in the above mentioned period http://www.sys baleful (Komash 2005; p.5). –

“Conflict Trends in Africa a Macro a Africa in Trends “Conflict central

internal 16

temicpeace.org/africa/ACPPAnnex2b.pdf authority but the establishment of their own, their of establishment the but authority

hazard hr wrd tts Ohr hn h well the than Other states. world third bolster

for any regime. African continent African regime. any for nt Karimov‘s regime and for for and regime Karimov‘s nt

their grip on power however, power on grip their . 4 -

Comparative Perspective”. (2005). (2005). Perspective”. Comparative

nucsfl op or coups unsuccessful commo

nly ence state the CEU eTD Collection Third World Alignments‖ and later developed in a book ―Choosing Sides: Alignment and Alignment Sides: ―Choosing book a in developed later and Alignments‖ World Third Steve Framework: Theoretical The Omnibalancing towards resources power.maintaining encourages to which government insecurity creates the order of and inability peace establish and state the of weakness the that argues It analysis. of unit the as general in state the not regime, ruling a introducing and paradigm domestic thre on focusing oriented, internally is dilemma insecurity the however, dilemma security classical the Unlike deterioration. its of determinants as securityboosting di is emphasized variables state the defining By threats. internal became collapse a against to balancing towards efforts their all redirected leading leaders world third and low extremely war interstate scale full a of possibility the that assert state of perceptions realist traditional of rethink a consider Authors Job. Brian by edited States‖ World Third in Security National Dilemma: Insecurity ―The essays of collection 1992 in explained is dilemmas new these of emergence The i purely transformed is and irrelevant becomes cases such in security

of attempts identifies which part the in dilemma security classical the with agrees lemma flawed both in relation to origins of threats, as well as their their as well as threats, of origins to relation in both flawed n

R. David‘s theory omnibalancing was introduced in 1991 in the article ―Explaining ―Explaining article the in 1991 in introduced was omnibalancing theory David‘s R.

as a unitary actor the security dilemma fails to control for for control to fails dilemma security the actor unitary a as above. above. Consequently

its simplistic understanding of state and threat and state of understanding simplistic its 17

s, security, threat and war. They They war. and threat security, s, objectives

h rgm t drc all direct to regime the nto regime security. regime nto ats emerging from emerging ats Te insecurity The . internal CEU eTD Collection a ain ih scnay het Dvd ss h eape f h Sve Uin Great Union, Soviet the of example the uses David threat. secondary a with align may agai balance to willtry not, worldor third matter no to necessary it finds he Firstly world: third the for applicable it make to order in power of balance original the to amendments three suggests author The p.235). (D power in him keep to takes it what do to likely more is power tooutside which as calculation rational his is behavior leader world third the of determinant powerful leve worldthe third in to regulatorytheir play in states thedomestic a respective role fail making regimesmanyweakness, of because that suggests Davidcentral authority.the of absence domestic to relation in states such in regimes of strength the for control to fail amendments later other and theory power of balance actor, unitary a as state a viewing By realignments. asserts David As to theaccording author also threats significant experiences who leader world third the to sufficient not are Walt and Waltz by developed ideas original realists he Although choices. alliance particular in output, policy foreign of as relations intrastate explores and variables systemic beyond goes David the ins of assumptions with accordance in is theory The World‖. Third the in Realignment

ecurity dilemma ecurity Job‘s workbut unlike dilemma primarily itfocuses thethird alliancesin world. on l as anarchic as international. The author implies that in that implies author The international. as anarchic as l

confirming confirming adversaries te aac o pwr s nbe o xli tid ol ainet and alignments world third explain to unable is power of balance the , ht tts aac aant hi bget het Dvd set that asserts David threat, biggest their against balance states that Fr elss h aacy n nentoa lvl s asd y the by caused is level international on anarchy the realists For .

he considers considers he as most 18 pressing

nst their primary threats and in doing so doing in and threats primarytheir nst .

given on internal paradigm which paradigm internal on emphasize

interpret circumstances the most the circumstances acced

that all leaders, all that the behavior of behavior the casual es

avid 1991: avid ih neo with

factors factors -

CEU eTD Collection f h Blne f oe peit that predicts p.238) Power of Balance 1991: the If (David power?‖ in remaining my concordance of probability the affect policy this does ―how asks leader the Omnibalancing by However state?‖ the of power the affect a state the of leader the approach this to according opportunities alliance evaluating when therefore interests national to according act leaders nature, most the being survival resolution; conflict to option an always is force of use and conflict to bound are interests where anarchy by characterized is world the that accepts also It rationality; and interests power, on focuses politics international that acknowledging assumptions, realist main accepts it that sense in These ap it be make to added should approach. they and theory scientific power of balance relevant the by considered requiring not are characteristics unique, them makes which regime are rulers Such power. in stay to will strong a leader: world third any of goal primary the on focuses David level.Thirdly systemic a victory‖on ofspoils the ―share to desire notthe and threat internal l their the contradicts with but bandwagoning align may leaders the domestic their with deal Therefore to abroad from adversaries well. as challenges internal strong of t ofnature the assumes that he Secondly arguments. his reinforce to WWII the during Germany Nazi against alliance US and Britain

the survival of the Third World leader leader World Third the of survival the

to these questions the decision makers decision the questions these to

ed t sciie tt itrss n xhne o poogto o their of prolongation for exchange in interests state sacrifice to ready accedes plicable to the Third World. Omnibalancing is a modified version also version modified a is Omnibalancing World. Third the to plicable crucial

that for each state there exist there state each for that . It also assumes that politics is govern is politics that assumes also It . tr y lcn epai o te lmnto o the of elimination the on emphasis placing by ater t he leader will ask, ―Which outside power is most most is power outside ―Which ask, will leader he he Third World politics often implies the presence implies oftenpolitics he Third World 19 in this case. Balance of Power assumes that assumes Power of Balance case. this in

sks a question: ―How does this policy this does ―How question: a sks

have ones s a s . A given action might look like look might action given A . varying

clear hierarchy clear

approaches to aligning. to approaches ed by laws of human of laws by ed

of issues with issues of In CEU eTD Collection epcie rus pitn te onr i vros atos co factions various in country the splitting groups respective central the around uniting of Instead state. the of idea common and consciousness social lack that people unifies territory the groups social the therefore before, existed have F specificities States. are defined These by as author following: the Nece between conflicts of outnumbered significantly attempt have states successful within wars and nearly change regime or coercive successful the experienced have 1945 since states adversaries been have that fact the on emphasis an places also author The explanatorymore powe much gains it but Waltz and Morgentau of tools explanatory simple more to compared and theory the complicate Omnibalancing by introduced variables Additional interests. national Waltz of fundamentals the of one arguments Morgentau‘s contradicts theory David‘s elite, ruling the leaderor the theemphasis on placing By face.‖ I that threats internaland external me from othe the put be will question the that predicts Omnibalancing states‖, other by caused threats the from state my protect to likely irst is the colonial heritage. Most of Third World states have been created where none where created been have states World Third of Most heritage. colonial the is irst

ssity of dealing primarily with internal internal with primarily dealing of ssity them

vrhon y iet nevnin fo otie Al tes el o internal to fell others All outside. from interventions direct by overthrown uh as such they contain contain they .

coups, military revolts etc. According to David most of Third World World Third of most David to According etc. revolts military coups, r taken specificities of the specificitiesr taken ofthe Third in (Davidmind 1991). World conce on a given territory is not not is territory given a on rning

accordance states r way: ―Which outside power is most likely to protect protect to likely most is power outside ―Which way: r authority being perils 20

te uie rud h itrss f their of interests the around unite they ,

of their their of

is caused by specificities of Third World World Third of specificities by caused is unitar always there always ol svrl hr Wrd leaders World Third several only , y actors and their policies serving policies their and actors y political . Such arbitr Such .

odr wt bres of borders with borders ptn fr domestic for mpeting ary nature of nature ary

CEU eTD Collection the authority of the state and demanding beneficial treatment. beneficial demanding stateand the of authority the 5 adversar outside such of weakness Moreover, society. making decision the from singlehandedlybyorindividual an by out carried is policy foreign in making Decision low. and is life political participation the in Political society the of regimes. involvement authoritarian by ruled are group the to belonging majorit Absolute regime. the of type the to us leads argument of line This domestic against actions their challenges in aggressive more them which life makes often and wealth privileges, all of loss the means leader World Third the for acquired have they and what protect charge in remain to leaders facto de of will strong equally an means, all by power attracti the in groups societal other than more much wealth, significant cases of in rulers the country.is low,most unwelcomed them acquireSuch leaders making coups, with power to come controversial leaders or revolutions World Third the that is feature specific Another holdingfactions power the capital. the in dominance.

Such groups can be based on religious, ethnic, linguistic or other identities, mobilizing around their ideas to challenge challenge to ideas their around mobilizing identities, other linguistic or ethnic, religious, on based be can groups Such

for strong internal actors. internal strong for .

n this In ies . In contrary, the the contrary, In .

predicament in such state state such in

elections. Therefore their legitimacy in the eyes of the citizens the of eyes the in legitimacy their Therefore elections. entities implies

h cnrl oenet fe bcms n o such of one becomes often government central the As a consequence t consequence a As

encourages competing groups to seek support from support seek to groups competing encourages upesn gop lo seek also group suppressing

that stakes are extremely high. The loss of po of loss The high. extremely are stakes that makes rules and laws forceful impositions on on impositions forceful laws and rules makes 21

a narrowe he desire of the later to come to come to later the of desire he lite. Isolation of regular citizens regular ofIsolation lite. state making their position position their making state s

help adversaries o countries of y elswhere

and wer

its to CEU eTD Collection oe ihn h sae eoig ut n o te lyr. hrfr te re o domestic of order the Therefore players. the of one just becoming state the within role mediating same the play to ability the theylack that weak so are government the and state the in cases many in that indicate above identified characteristics the However conflicts. resolving and constituents its between relations mediating government central of absence the by caused is anarchy the that assume theorists power of Balance p domestic of order the and system international the of anarchy the World: Third the to relation in power of balance the of argument main the challenges he First, theory. his support above set World Third the on generalizations why explains also author The the is threat primarydomestic as by theory the of focus the in above mentioned group the to part the state the makes what but vary Combinations either. World Third the in only observed doe Neither World. Third the to belonging as state the identifyto present be characteristicsshould these all that assume not does David respective their regimes. of goals and interests to according but interests economic or political arena international on decisions support group this to belonging self their is states World Third the of characteristics main the of one that asserts David Finally the of satisfaction the guarantee will which side the supporting challenges domestic of outcomes the influence to try actors Outside bay. at challengers domestic keep and power maintain

- dniiain s uh H rfr t Sehn rne agig ht h countries the that arguing Kranser Stephen to refers He such. as identification ir c within interests the

ountry. the

leader.

s he assert that these weaknesses are are weaknesses these that assert he s ,

no t according to their their to according t

perception hr World Third

olitics. f the of ,

the CEU eTD Collection in their hierarchytheir issues,in their of own survival thetop thelist. ison of states, respective their of characteristics to due as primarily threats such against balance of accuracy their and uniqueness The its in lays balancing. World Third the to of relation in omnibalancing object the as danger external an Neo elites that assumption the particular neo of ideas shares omnibalancing asserts, David As it. ruling remains survival vi goalis survival. This their for safety of margin a provide to can they as much as power their expand to seek wi states that assumption its from comes power of balance the to challenge third The interests thestate of the as wholea to state not as state such of Identification state. the within consensus entities also are assumptions These with and autonomously operate to able authority, central coh a is state the assumes, power of balance the As World. Third the in analysis of unit principle a as state the against argues he Second government. central Such interest domestic of strength the by distorted is politics

provide us with the tool capable of explaining aligning explaining of capable tool the with us provide - realism however agrees with the balance of power in power of balance the with agrees however realism as most pressing ones. Omnibalancing assumes that assumes Omnibalancing ones. pressing most as

are unable to establish pea establish to unable are the regime regime the ,

however the object trying to survive is not the state the not is survive to trying object the however is important as the policy of the regime may in some cases contradict cases some in may regime the of policy the as important is ewed differently as far as the the T as far as ewed differently disposition flawed ce and order, resolve conflicts on their territory and find and territory their on conflicts resolve order, and ce and thecontradiction

have their own interests, with interests, own their have hn t oe t te hr ol a mn o such of many as World Third the to comes it when verythe reassemblesinternational much 23

erent unit with clearly defined borders, defined clearly with unit erent h ird W emphasis strict hierarchical strict the of weakness the and groups willaffect on not theoutput . The shift of focus towards from towards focus of shift The the part of threats, focusing on focusing threats, of part the

a orld is concerned. The need orld need ofThe isconcerned. Third W Third

principle unit of analysis will will analysis of unit principle -

els i ti pr, in part, this in realism on internal threats internal on

power as a dominant. a as power orld leaders will try to to try will leaders orld itself but the regime the but itself

internal politics internal disorder. .

and

ll . CEU eTD Collection is a coherent example. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are believed to be the weakest states of states weakest the be to believed are Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan example. coherent a is sufficient of lackthe and level national theory to reference In necessary features for occur.omnibalancing to t argue and research the for selected cases to David by set world third regarding generalizations apply will I research the of goals the For here. common are issues rights means. human constant any by democratic as labeled regim be Authoritarian cannot research my of region Targeted concept fitting the whereof a state omnibalancing usually occurs. Russia. with realign and policies respective their and location their to is (which west the with alliances seeking Kyrgyztan and Uzbekistan keeping 1979 (Waltz realign or align states the way the with do to nothing have issues ideological and close is which power the than threatening hypothesizes Waltz by developed approaches traditional of concepts the of One region. the in occurred cannot approach power outside the by caused threat o efforts the that expect I variables. domestic ignore which and Walt Morgentau, Waltz byset approaches traditional than case policy foreign A seig h rsac qeto I il xmn i Omni if examine will I question research the nswering

a tre onre wih a fcsn o i te ae d cry ot f the of most carry do paper the in on focusing am I which countries three hat eta Asia Central

output ht hn othe when that s sprsie oenet, o lvl f oiia priiain and participation political of level low governments, suppressive es,

of states selected for the for selected states of , one of the key the of one n mind in traditional traditional r variables being equal, the power that is far away is less less is away far is that power the equal, being variables r . Unlike omnibalancing it fails to explain why would would why explain to fails it omnibalancing Unlike . f balancing against the outside power or against the against or power outside the against balancing f belonging to spheres of influence), retreat from their from retreat influence), of spheres to belonging

conflict resolving power. Central Asia in this respect this in Asia Central conflictresolvingpower. features of the third world state state world third the of features Consequently 24 study

; p.5 ; . I assume that it is better suited to the to suited better is it that assume I . ). This is a controversial assumption assumption controversial a is This account for account aacn i al t epan the explain to able is balancing

find cases relevant in terms of of terms in relevant cases find

oiy hfs ht have that shifts policy consistent is the is

anarchy on anarchy

according CEU eTD Collection external help. According to the author, 9/11 events and the subsequent war on terror terror on grip its oppositionand on war consolidate Islamist the abilitycrush Tashkent to official provided subsequent the and events 9/11 author, the to According help. external domestic that authorities asser Fumagalli security its seek on ally and the arena international accordingly. on maintenance of power by e caused domestic tensions the over concerns that out points article the developments, subsequent and post independence in realignments and alignments approac David‘s article Steven the In applies 2007. Fumagalli in Review Science Political International in Russia published with Fumagalli, Rapprochement Uzbekistan‘s of Implications and Rationale article the in placed is Uzbekistan in orientation policy foreign on security regime of influence on emphasis important The domesticsignificant constraints. underdevelopment considerable of became region the of area populated densely Karim Islam dictator Uzbek respect. this in stronger be to out turned Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan constituents.powerful domestic for incomes sufficient and exp has One resources development. natural of lack the by troubled Both region. the

overturn ing ov had had ov

Karimov domestic s ht nraig het rm I from threat increasing that ts ,

ae a faced h rgm hs salse isl a a tbe uorc without autocracy stable a as itself established has regime the n establish and objectives erienced a tragic civil war and another had serious issues with issues serious had another and war civil tragic a erienced

challenges significant

could have been achieved more more achieved have been could ― lgmns n Rainet i Cnrl sa The Asia: Central in Realignments and Alignments ing Atog srgln wt pover with struggling Although . challenge

- oit r. eiwn Ubksas ah to path Uzbekistans Reviewing era. soviet h Ilms sae Trmnsa ws re from free was Turkmenistan state. Islamist the 25 rvee aoe t epan Tashkent‘s explain to above, reviewed h

the

n i sae Frhn val Ferghana state. his in target of target lms opsto cnicd Uzbek convinced opposition slamist ncouraged the regime to concentrate thencouraged to regime Islamist

easily witheasily meaningful militan ts

ley, the most most the ley, ‖ with the goal the with

y Matteo by y and ty CEU eTD Collection 2007; entrapment‖ (Fumagalli p.266). escape entangled are factors ― concludes, author the As opp refugee crisissubsequent has on crackdown brutal in side American the from support of lack The position. his undermined have could demands, U.S. to according system political the openingup that suggested who Karimov, by threat a as perceived also Uzbek on imposed conditionality the However, power.

ht e a gi a ul understanding full a gain can we that it is only by paying attention to how domestic and systemic systemic and domestic how to attention paying by only is it effectively brought the the alliance to an end. brought 26

sto i Andijon in osition allies by the U.S. government was government U.S. the by allies

f o cutis ek to seek countries how of in

a 20 and 2005 May CEU eTD Collection states. to trying con and shift have policy more Kyrgyzstan or one experienced and Uzbekistan varies. level systemic a on behavior of pattern their However independence. of history brief same, the have and region same the to belong most as by characterized them are case by my in selected considered States, threatening. challenges, internal against balance an to from assistance actor seek external to leaders state authoritarian force actors internal powerful beli my is this behind idea The state. the of orientation policy foreign variable, dependent a and threats and insecurity internal variable, independent introduction the in reviewed have I As Research the explanatory thethesis. power of for. looking am I data of type and I Afterwards case behind rationale the explain the and discuss briefly will question I research First thesis. the of part methodological on focus will I chapter this In 3 Methodology

itn frin oiy ae on based policy foreign sistent answer Question

il eiw y eerh strategy research my review will

lies in determinants of variation in foreign policy observed in these three these in observed policy foreign in variation of determinants in lies

Finally

s ,

the goal of the thesis is to find the link between the between link the find to is thesis the of goal the while Turkmenistan manag Turkmenistan while

―positive neutrality‖. The The neutrality‖. ―positive , I will touch upon limitations which may reduce may which limitations upon touch will I , 27

and

oe dt slcin Ietf sources Identify selection: data cover h sm tp o regime, of type same the f ht het, oe by posed threats, that ef eerh question research selection ed to develop a steady steady a develop to ed

subsequently

am I . CEU eTD Collection region do exist. When arguing for this we should keep in mind the main ques main the mind in keep should we this for arguing When exist. do region a or country the towards powers of interests strong that essential is it Particularly powers. between rivalry a on based is theory David‘s that emphasize to important is it Second, background historical had thesame theand after starting of fall the SovietUnion. point three all that fact the is important most and First thesis. a as Asia Central selected have I why reasons several are There Selection Case assumption. for motivator domestic the capable actor external are an with cooperation assumptions towards it push my will regime ruling If the to challenge level. a correct, interstate on activities to them relate and regime the to this using detec to will able strategy By be I interpretativism. of foundations on relies and empirics of analysis depth in of opportunity the providesstudy Case research. my for strategy appropriate an is study in developments internal both and on international data empirical observe carefully to have I that fact the on decision my Basing logical thesis the goalof The Strategy Research

link with its link with

of providing sufficient aid for maintaining power. Therefore power. maintaining for aid sufficient providing of

behavior arena. international on

is to carefully analyze domestic developments in the state and find a find thestate and in developments carefullydomestic analyzeisto a t important developments on intrastate arena on developmentsimportant t oeg plc sit il e n niain f n incorrect an of indication an be will shift policy foreign eetd tts I ae eie ta a case a that decided have I states, selected 28

entities

selected have the same the have selected

rpr ae o my for case proper ,

the absence of absence the identify threats tion that the that tion

CEU eTD Collection powers for the influence on the region is often referred as the “new great game”. great “new the as referred is region often the on influence forthe powers 6 powers, providing alliance. for opportunity world from coming interest significant the with d) regime; the challenging groups interest monopol the without b) domestically; legitimacy democratic lacking authoritarian, be to to have Governments a) have criteria: following the satisfy research the for selected cases the that mean explanations above Therefore required depth anobservation in states ofin such in policy foreign of explanation successful a and power of balance be the by not evaluated could World Third the of specificities that belief author‘s of Wor because developed Third the to belonging their and exception without theregion regimes all authoritarian of of isthe selection nature reason third for The competition Russia and game‖ Britain ―great the of rivalry, a of subject a was It empires. between tensions region the of weight The compromise on available power only the with aligningby existingthreat the internalizeto but another option have not does state the case this In choices. alliance on variables different of influence the of significance the align of terms in alternative an have not does state weak rule‖? my prolonging in job better a do to likely more is power outside ―Which answer: to has country Third World a of leader

The original great game was was game great original The

as soonas asSoviet the apart. Union fell

n h 19 the in a rivalry between Russian and British empires in 19 in empires British and Russian between rivalry a in terms of terms in

etr ad eae nw ltom o superpower for platform new a became and century In this reference this In

geopolitic d bases. Central Asia in this respect is a proper case. proper a is respect this in Asia Central bases. d

trastate (David relations 1991). 29 s

is high. It has historically been the point of point the been historically has It high. is o mas f ilne c wt strong with c) violence; of means on y

, if we are observing a situation where a where situation a observing are we if , d Oc aan onblnig was omnibalancing again, Once ld. ing, we are unable to argue for for argue to unable are we ing,

century. The new rivalry of world world of rivalry new The century.

between CEU eTD Collection lack insignificancy domestic threats or the theregime. of to my and theory David‘s is neutrality Turkmenistan‘s If of determinant the correct, are applicability its on assumptions right. are assumptions my if power explanatory increased provide will which case, test a as included is it therefore patronage, superpower sought nothas and shift policysignificant a conducted not has regimes.Turkmenistan insecure by in variations policy foreign stat of selected determinants finding at aims thesis The three. all from conclusions same expect not do I research the in included are countries three Although p.57 a develop to managed has it proclaims, repression often it as strongly as hands its in country Uzbek Although regimes. lasting to believed is Uzbekistan to tool bargaining a as resolve policyforeign its (Huskey issues 2008 territory its used even has and levels domestic and systemic both from threats to exposed is violence, of means on monopoly it the establish low, to isunable government the of legitimacy The state. weak extremely an is Kyrgyzstan

- ae state based es, assuming that they lay in domestic threats which are being balanced out balanced being are which threats domestic in lay they that assuming es,

ehns ad anan t gi o pwr Wahvk 2008 (Wlachovska power on grip its maintain and mechanism

be stronger in this respect. It has developed one of the long the of one developed has It respect. this in stronger be government 30 ; p.15 ;

s o a pwru ad os o hl the hold not does and powerful as not is ).

est

is ;

CEU eTD Collection y aeu osrain f nrsae n i and intrastate of observation careful by started be to has data the of collection The datasets. proper of lack the and region the on available research previous of number limited only to due restricted is data of choice The my define I two, the between link logical a finding particularlyon threats domestic to relation in developments international of interpretation on relies and study case a uses thesis my As power. their perspective. that t try and careful more are from leaders authoritarian threat power, losing of of costs realizing fully level and dilemma the insecurity Experiencing evaluate and events of developments of perception their to according 2008 (Fumagalli later the by threat a as perceived be should it but elite ruling its to not challenging does country the in place taking event the that emphasize to important is It interpretative. as analysis data of techniques my define I policy, foreign in orientation as interpreted be to has arena international on regime the of arena. international on action particular the with it link and regime the to threat a as country the in place taking event the describe will I question. research a and strategy research the by determined mainlyis research the for used methodology The Metho Research Data

research as inductive.research p.255 ;

. hs eiiin s rca a laes ed o ug, ocpulz ad act and conceptualize judge, to tend leaders as crucial is definition This ).

o safeguard themselves from even minor challenges to challenges minor even from themselves safeguard o at. hy o o hv te blt t frse future foresee to ability the have not do They facts. nternational developments involving selected selected involving developments nternational 31

eesrl nes o e significantly be to needs necessarily As a particular conduct particular a As CEU eTD Collection from them can be biased with the share of state propaganda. state of share the with biased be can from them 7 oriented is observing are we case the that indication an as interpreted be will Russia partnership strategic on agreement bilateral a of signing instance For time. of period particular a in policy foreign the in shifts as well as state the of orientation international the the altering it, reduces or state balance geopolitical selected the with power particular a of involvement the increase which cooperation of forms other and states strong with together projects orie or power particular a on agreements are of interests documents by influenced organizations international in participation Such cooperation, strategic authorities. state key by signed documents in internati On media. independent active and opposition domestic strong minorities, various ideology, different of militants protests, are usually region the in events Such regime. the to threat a pose might which events for internation and domestic categories: two to according them sort to have I possible, as data much as obtaining and sources the through going After Europe‘. Free ‗Radio of page web Foundation, Society Open the by funded eurasianet.org Peace and of War ‗Institute the to belong pages web Such coverage. accurate therefore more provide organizations and cooperation in withfunded international web news regional on focus will I purpose necessary is events of observation independent data unbiased For countries. these in governments of nature the is data to access the limiting factor Another states.

National media is avoided as it is usually heavily influenced by their respective go respective their by influenced heavily usually is it as avoided is media National

in the country. According to these documents I will be able to detect to able be will I documents these to According country. the in td gis tee neet; atcpto i goa economic global in participation interests; these against nted

onal level I will look for events which find reflection find which events for look will I level onal - pages and news portals which are designed or designed are which portals news and pages 32

al. On domestic level I will look look will I level domestic On al. vernments and the data available available data the and vernments Reporting‘ (iwpr.net), Reporting‘ 7 . For this this For .

with CEU eTD Collection on policyselectedinfluence of states. outputs their and organizations regional as well as international on data the lacks also thesis The wholeresearch. be cannot there and It replicated properly evolving. constantly is it that is study case the with associated issue The at. looking am I issue the for available datasets significant no are there as zero from started be must t requires region the of Specificity matter. this on conducted have been has I research previous of number limited region Only work. the of area the target a as selected is thesis the of power explanatory the reducing limitation, typical A Limitations willmilitary viewed steptowardsmore western orientati obviously a be as U.S. the to rights basing granting on agreement the while power, particular this towards

is always a chance that it will change, which might distort the distort might which change, will it that chance a always is 33

hat the work on data selection data on work the hat on.

CEU eTD Collection 8 Uzbekistan:4 Strengthening K region (Pikulina 1999 region (Pikulina o has Karimov on military Uzbekistan‘, alliance. Republicfocusing of and Federation the Russian the between Cooperation and Friendship, Relations, Interstate of Principles Fundamental year same May, of 30th 1992. May in Treaty Security Collective a joined regime Karimov‘s existence, its to threats increasing Encountering country. neighboring the from over spilled easily have furth Tajikistan in war Civil however as a thefaçade iron theyfor onlyIslam rule served of Karimov. 2007 (Fumagalli authoritarianism Karimo down 2003), (Collins Caucasus South in observed conflicts ethnic of probability the reduced significantly have groups identity a on relying more was country Uzbekistan for easy from far were independence of years First clan regime his and of concern. main his became wellbeing and Maintenance state. independent an of leader the became party communist and Republic Socialistic Soviet Uzbek the of President the Karimov, Islam democratic. from far were power to came which forces The Union. Soviet the of dissolve the following 1991 in law international of subject the became Uzbekistan

Elections were held however their freedom and fairness were highly doubted. doubted. highly were fairness and freedom their however held were Elections

fficially declared that Russia was essential for maintaining peace and stability in the the in stability and peace maintaining for essential was Russia that declared fficially ‘ rgm have regime v‘s

Uzbekistan and Russia signed a bilateral agreement: ‗The Treaty on the on Treaty ‗The agreement: bilateral a signed Russia and Uzbekistan

; p.10 ). er increased the fears of Uzbek authorities as the chaos could chaos the as authorities Uzbek of fears the increased er

clan structure. Although the lack of clearly defined, strong defined, clearly of lack the Although structure. clan activities of Islamist opposition openly calling for turning for calling openly opposition Islamist of activities ail pse te el etbihd tt towards p.255) ; state established newly the pushed rapidly arimov’sDictatorial Grip

External signs of democracy were maintained, maintained, were democracy of signs External 34

a .

Social architecture of the of architecture Social former secretary of of secretary former

the CEU eTD Collection

reduction of reduction 9 external from benefited have may it that realized Uzbekistan asserts, (2007) Fumagalli As for signal further from force aid Russian of the Inactivity abroad. for search to president the encouraged power losing of fear The (Eberhardt regime 2004 Karimov‘s undermining in interest Russian regarding speculations preve to nothing did who Uzbekistan, in located forces Russian of Passivity cases. both in blamed was Uzbekistan) of Movement (Islamic IMU 2000 august in back came threat armed Treaty, Security Collective the from withdraw to decision Uzbekistan‘s following months Few 2000. and 99 in attacks Islamist by stimulated was Russia from distancing Further Apri in GUAM joined country The 1998). (Bohr functions and role its of growth the resisting anti refusal the researches. various in evaluated Moscow from away are step main Karimov‘s that argues (2004) Eberhardt attempts These Russia. from itself distance the after opposition Islamist of Feeling 1997. in military Russian defeat from intervention the with ended has Tajikistan in war civil The

h mi ga of goal main The

- l 1999 whichl 1999 became GUUAM. Russian activities as well: Karimov did not hesitate to openly criticize CIS for inactivity, openlyfor to criticizeCIS hesitate well: activitiesnot as Russian Karimov did ; p.; 202 militants

the influence of Russia in Russiain influenceof the the president the to prolong to ).

GUAM GUAM

nee Krisa fo Tjksa to Tajikistan from Kirgizstan entered

h ognzto fudd n 96 y eri, kan, zbia ad odv was Moldova and Azebaijan Ukraine, Georgia, by 1996 in founded organization the the

that he could no longer rely on Russia as a guarantor of his rule. his of guarantor a as Russia on rely longer no could he that

participation in the Collective Security Treaty. There were other were There Treaty. Security Collective the in participation

post - Soviet Soviet the same forces same the 9 s in the face of a threat to Uzbek regime was a clear clear a was regime Uzbek to threat a of face the in s

space . 35

more secure, Uzbek regime decided to decided regime Uzbek secure, more invaded southern Uzbek villages. The The villages. Uzbek southern invaded nt the invasion, gave a push start to start push a gave invasion, the nt

tak h Frhn Vle. The Valley. Ferghana the attack was manifested in manifested was the

CEU eTD Collection up a base in Karsi in base a up States United the to right the gave 2001 October in signed agreement The relatively it‘s and neighbors its militarydeveloped couldhave infrastructure an excprovided all of out stable most the was regime The purposes. Afghanistan, borders Asia Central of heart the land The importance. strategic of was Uzbekistan States United the For movements opposition country‖withinthe (Cooley p.72). 2008: against crackdown regime‘s his justify and blessings Western p States United the with As Taliban. with connections in blaming and with terrorists it associating opposition, Islamist against fight its justify powers, world the of one its increase to opportunity an was terror US rights human significant with influence (Berdikeevaproblems 2005 Russian heavy under still country, distant a Uzbek viewed officials US because any Partly Asia. Central towards show interest particular not did States United the Union Soviet the of collapse the after 90s early In well.as regio the in interest American Increasing terrorism. fighting of mask the under it crush and opposition gave terror on War w of regardless help

- Uzbek relations went uphill swiftly after 9/11 events. For Uzbek regime the war on on war the regime Uzbek For events. 9/11 after swiftly uphill went relations Uzbek

n also presented also - Khanabad, located about 150 kilometers away from Afghan border to border Afghan from away kilometers 150 about located Khanabad, here it came from. The 9/11 9/11 The from. came it here Karimov resented a major opportunity for Karimov to crush the IMU with with IMU the crush to Karimov for opportunity major a resented ; p.1;

him the chance to finally find some common ground with U.S. U.S. with ground common some find finally to chance the him ). Islamist against war own his justify to opportunity the

international credibility by becoming the ally of of ally the becoming by credibility international 36

representing events

came just in time for the country. the for time in just came oly ihfly set ―Allying asserts rightfully Cooley ellent place U.S. ellent place for presence.

a perfect location for logistic for location perfect a locked country in country locked military istan as as istan to set set to

CEU eTD Collection 10 Uzbekistan basically viewed the United States as a tool a as States United the viewed basically Uzbekistan W political pluralism. of promotion and rights human of protection the towards steps active take reforms, conduct the protect Uzbekistan to of integrity territorial and security responsibility took government U.S. terrorism. against alliance military Dec The base worth equipment advanced 2002 in million 130 to up increased U of rate the 2001 In economic benefits as well expensive as military equipment. ( Taliban alongside Afghanist in members IMU target to agreed has government U.S. rescuesupply and missions to limited be should base the of use the but airfield the on deployed be not should aircraft i troops 1500 to up station to right 2005 (Berdikeeva integrity territorial and security Uzbekistan‘s to threat direct a of case in intervene to possibility the had forces US sides, According Taliban. against operations its support

US Department of State of State US Department

r rltos ewe nw lis i nt at long last not did allies new between relations arm - related related (Cooleyoperating expenses 2008 laration on Strategic Partnership signed in March 2002, was basically focusing on focusing basically was 2002, March in signed Partnership Strategic on laration Bedikeeva 2005, Cooley 2008). Cooley 2005, Bedikeeva www.state.gov

. S .

upr t Uzbekistan to support

only $ 2 and 82

(Cooley 2008 te ae Ubk oenet nitd ht combat that insisted government Uzbek base. the n 10 $ . Uzbek security forces and army received special special received army and forces security Uzbek . 120 million respectively as well as $15 million million $15 as well as respectively million 120 37 in case of necessity of case in ; p73;

; p.72 ; ; p.1 ;

qae USD equaled Uzbek government received significant received government Uzbek ). to mutual agreement signed by both both by signed agreement mutual to ).

). The U The ). for achieving its domestic goals: domestic its achieving for

however

. S

3 ilo. h number The million. 43 while Karimov vo Karimov while military were granted a granted were military . As As . an who were fighting fighting were who an stressed

above, to wed for CEU eTD Collection No. 222 (Spring, 2002), pp. 8 pp. 2002), 222 (Spring, No. Uzbekistan in Democracy seeControlable more information For be democratic. 11 hm ee re mltns Hwvr needn itrainl organization international independent However militants. armed were them of all and died had 200 under government Uzbek to According source. the on depending into fire opened and protesters surrounded vehicles armed in Security The terrorists. with ties of accused businessmen, 23 of arrest the protesting demonstration, a on down cracked forces government 2005 11, support in them accusing suspects of hundreds arrested forces security the when 2002 in later obvious more became crimes Karimov‘s whichintroduced powerfurther increased executive of (Ilkhamovan branch 2002 referendum controversial extremely an of result a as years seven to extended was Uzbekistan in presidency of term the 2002 January In not long consequences come.did take to diver Such p.1). 2007: (Oclott countries‖ two the of agendas political domestic the in values shared on than rather goals policy foreign shared on focused that partnership strategic a U.S. U.S and U.S. the between War Cold the of years the from dates consciousness political whose figure a ―Karimov, concludes, Olcott Brill Martha As option. an as authorities Uzbek by viewed never were hum to respect participation, political of encouragementreforms, of necessity The threat. Islamist with it linking instantly left, opposition political of kind any of oppression its of justification and IMU of elimination

Many international o international Many

gent views on cooperation would certainly undermine the alliance and negative and alliance the undermine certainly would cooperation on views gent bservers ref bservers

- 10 .

.S.R., sought to do this in a very ―old very a in this do to sought .S.R.,

used to work in Uzbekistani referendum acknowledging in advance that that advance in acknowledging referendum Uzbekistani in work to used an rights and other democratic values demanded by the U.S. the by demanded values democratic other and rights an

h cr the

w. h nmes f killed of numbers The owd. 38

11 ing terrorism (Cooley 2008 (Cooley terrorism ing . Du . al chamber legislative body was also also was body legislative chamber al -

Alisher Ilkhamov, Ilkhamov, Alisher - style‖ way, by offering the offering by way, style‖

n ijrd vary injured and ; p.73 ; Middle East Report East Middle the ). On May On ). ; p.223;

it H

will not not will uman ).

, CEU eTD Collection http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/uzbekistan0605/5.htm#_Toc105632750 12 forces during the crackdown. In response Uzbek government restricte government Uzbek response In crackdown. the during forces security Uzbekby equipment issued U.S. of use the regarding investigation of initiative the intern backed an Rice Condoleezza State of resisted Secretary the later however even first, UN by investigation U.S. weeks. several for lasted silence Washington‘s the damaged have would 2005 (Mckivergan worldwide democracy promoting of policy silence president‘s of credibility that argued Others base. important extremely an an of loss a to lead would it as regime Uzbek on criticalturning on reluctant was defense of department the by led wing Military in Washington. diverged have opinions The 2005)? regime Karimov‘s isolated have could America worked. have not might tactics carrots and campaign. Sticks Afghan in support of terms in Uzbekistan to alternatives real no were there would active were regime Bush discredited the with alliance an worldwide, under liberalism and democracy of promoters States United The world. the shocked have events Andijon well.country as o ruler authoritarian the frightened Revolution Tulip collapsed. had Kyrgyzstan neighboring in regime the after months two only held were demonstrations the that fact the by explained be can president R

Human Rights report with testimonies of eyewitnesses available at at available eyewitnesses of testimonies with report Rights Human ights

have undermined the image of the US on one hand. On the other hand however hand other the On hand. one on US the of image the undermined have

W but the question was whether Russia and China would do the same (Mckivergan same the do would China and Russia whether was question the but th report atch

f Uzbekistan who feared that revolutionary waves could reach his his reach could waves revolutionary that feared who Uzbekistan f

ewe 70 n 80 dead. 800 and 700 between

uh rtl epne y the by response brutal Such d night flights from from flights night d

access to access ational ; p.1 ; ). CEU eTD Collection was concerned about Russian re Russian about concerned was he because not U.S. the with aligned He power. of maintenance the was president a as behavior.Karimov such for explanatorypower an provides picture the into variables domestic bringing however, Omnibalancing long. so for sought had he Russia against balance the removed has he as irrational looks decision his regard th In States. the with ties closer developing from back drop Karimovs behind rationale power tried Hecountry. his for threat a as Russia considered maker decision uncontested as Karimov, In balancing. by explained be can 90s late the point the From giving a Relations Allied on treaty new a signed Russia and Uzbekistan country, the left soldier pri days to 180 party another notified be should agreement base the from withdraw regarding decision the which U notified officially a day The asylum. political them grant to ready were who countries European to people these transport to Nations United return fled Andijon from refugees 500 Around security forces. militants armed fact in were killed people the that stating officially down, crack U to contrast In base. the

to distance from this threat and and threat this from distance to

when the chance had occurred. However Neo However occurred. had chance the when of start to start

eues o itroain. h Uie Sae spotd h dcso o the of decision the supported States United The interrogations. for refugees

of view of Neo of view of a newcooperation level of betweenpost twoin these countries . S .

that they are activating the contract termination clause according to according clause termination contract the activating are they that . S or (Cooley 2008 (Cooley or .

position Russia and China backed Karimov‘s actions during actions Karimov‘s backed China and Russia position - realist approach Uzbekistan‘s attraction towards the U.S. in U.S. the towards attraction Uzbekistan‘s approach realist - intervention but intervention tr hs eiin a anucd ze authorities Uzbek announced was decision this fter balanced against Russia aligning with an alternative an with aligning Russia against balanced

to Kyrgyzstan. Uzbek authorities demanded on the on demanded authorities Uzbek Kyrgyzstan. to ; p. ; 40

77 ). In November 2005 after last last after 2005 November In ). because given a - Realist approach cannot explain the explain cannot approach Realist ‘ s main goal for his entire careerentire his goal for main s

he sought additional legitimacy additional sought he aot t a b age that argued be can it layout - soviet era. American resisting is

CEU eTD Collection regime his under demandingback conditions.less to ready was who Russia with realigning ties, the cut he rule, his for constraint a became perfectly accomplished he which IMU the crush to

s result a as A so a America as soon As . CEU eTD Collection 5 Kyrgyzstan:5 1991 he ran he ran 1991 unchallenged the became and presi October In nominated. was USSR the of Soviet Supreme the of deputy the Akayev Askar candidate, new the later days two and constitution Kyrgyz to according banned were rivals receive to able were two these of none however Jumagulov, Apas SSR Kirghiz of Ministers of Council of President and Amaliyev Absamat SSR Kyrghyz of Party Communist the of Secretary non was Akayev enough strangely and elections the the 15 October on in SSR Kyrgyz of Soviet Supreme held the by country were republic the of president the of post introduced newly a for elections po to came Akayev Askar president, The Kyrgyzstan. leader the of legitimacy democratic the States, Asian Central other like Much Russian and States military forces. K other. each against compete superpowers make to tries and orientation clear lacks which policy, Generally policyKyrgyzstan foreign was of internal how evaluate tensions and haveissues the the shaped foreigncountry. policy of and independence following history the cover will I encountered. Afterwards has government the that threats the as after well as inherited Union Soviet has the Kyrgyzstan of collapse which difficulties emphasize will I chapter this In

yrgyzstan remains the only country who had offered basing rights for both United both for rights basing offered had who country only the remains yrgyzstan the necessary the

Failed Multivector majority of votes. Inste votes. of majority

ism viewed 42

dent thestate.of dent

as as ad of running the second round, both round, second the running of ad e of them. Candidates were the First the were Candidates them. of e m ultivectorism (Huskey 2008 wer in quite a strange way. First First way. strange a quite in wer th

1990. Two candidates ran candidates Two 1990.

was ; p.9;

low in in low ), a

CEU eTD Collection gemn tgte wt Kzksa, eau ad usa wt Tjksa jiig in joining Tajikistan with Russia, and Belarus Kazakhstan, with together agreement union customs a signed also Kyrgyzstan attacked. being is them of one if case in support military mutual provide to members obliging Treaty, Security Collective CIS to support his Kyrgy and post as well as regional in involved actively became Kyrgyzstan particularly Bank Internationalinstitutions, and Monetary1992. in Fund World permanent process. transition the of boosting and infrastructure of development economy, underperforming gover Kyrgyz were result a As democracy. who Asian Central emerging organizations the aid to international desire the expressing and states western many attracted initiatives promot region, the in liberalism economic and political of model a as country his marked Akayev in located being of Despite Kyrgyzstan: terms In of Kyrgyzstan role thecenter Eurasia. as of historical the regarding rhetoric his with par on was which west and east between balance the find to tried president the 90s, of beginning the in popularity and legitimacy Enjoying The country became the member of the United Nations in March 1992 and in 1993 the 1993 in and 1992 March in Nations United the of member the became country The

mn ws rne a acs t lre on amd t oig ih its with coping at aimed loans large to access an granted was nment ing it as the―Switzerlanding as itAsia‖. These some verbal commitments of democratic and

of cooperation with west, first years of independence looked promising for for promising looked independence of years first west, with cooperation of z presidents signed a Friendship and Cooperation Treaty in 1992. Akayev gave Akayev 1992. in Treaty Cooperation and Friendship a signed presidents z

mission of the United Nations was opened in Bishkek. It also joined financial joined also It Bishkek. in opened was Nations United the of mission

a 43

ahr ittra nihoho, president neighborhood, dictatorial rather - oit oiis Russian politics: soviet

CEU eTD Collection agreement at at agreement 13 Afghanistan needed a supply route and a forward deployment installation for their forces. their for installation deployment forward a and route supply a needed Afghanistan U The States. United the started. of Interest of terror center the in on itself war the as 2001 non Strategically in interest western rediscovered Kyrgyzstan and contestation openness‖ (Huskeyp.10). 2008: Ch and Russia like those of company the in felt leadership its comfortable ―more authoritarian 2008 (Cooley allies closest backe had it that certain was and it Karimov‘s as neighbors repressive and brutal its as not of was regime the one although the reassembled closer governance of model The Russia. righ Belarus. and Kazakhstan including also Union Customs dominated Russian joined country the year same February, In republic. the of language second a as Russian the was Kyrgyz which to according constitution the review to request Yeltsin‘s Boris president Russian satisfied he 1995 In 1990s. mid in started west the from divergence Akayev‘s peacekeeping battalion. organization an Community‖, 1998

More information on Customs Unio Customs on information More n, hc udrto te aus f re ad tblt t b i cnlc wt toe of those with conflict in be to stability and order of values the understood which ina,

fly oe, l notes, tfully ny fiil agae f h sae Cntttoa aedet o 19 introduced 1996 of amendments Constitutional state. the of language official only 13 ; in 1994 1994 in ; http://www.worldtradelaw.net/fta/agreements/eaecfta.pdf and family extended his to privileges granted and policies reformist from off d - t 9s a Krysa mv frhr wy rm et n towards and west from away further move Kyrgyzstan saw 90s ate motn cuty with country important the

onr bcm te ebr f h ―eta Ain Economic Asian ―Central the of member the became country

p.70 ; n, now called the ‘Eurasian Economic Community’ available in the foundation foundation the in available Community’ Economic ‘Eurasian the called now n, running . Huskey ).

its own bank, mutual military guarantees and even a even and guarantees military mutual bank, own its o infcn ntrl eore suddenly resources natural significant no 44 set ta by that asserts

. S

eoig oe n more and more becoming iiay ihig aia in Taliban fighting military s Cooley As found

CEU eTD Collection 14 year following this statement the agreement wiagreement the statement this following year a In policy. independent more pursue should country the and reexamined be should base after. soon 10 July in elected t and leader opposition minister, prime Frmer soviet post space. in revolutions‖ ―colored of list the in one third the revolution, tulip the called later was regime his thecountry and Akayev Bishkek, reached protests fled the th transform parliament. or the of speaker a as him with republic parliamentary power in presence his extend to parliament puppet 1 March and 27 February on held results election protests Mass east base, Bishkek. air Kant at deployed were units force air Russian and 2003 in achieved was rights basing regarding Russia with agreement The again. once partnership American U.S of nature beneficial the Despite U De in opened was airbase Manas The States. United the for choice alternative an as served Kyrgyzstan therefore aircraft, military any of deployment the forbidding territory, its from operations on war in ally other The

Martha Brill Oclott Brill Oclott Martha .

S .

Marine CorpsMarine F

On On cember 2001. U.S. military were represented by U.S. Air Forces F Forces Air U.S. by represented were military U.S. 2001. cember uy 1 05 rsdn Bkyv none ta te ups o te U.S. the of purpose the that announced Bakiyev president 2005 11 July n h country the in Interview with Ber with Interview th

with 89% of votes. The fate o fate The votes. of 89% with -

18 which could fighters Uzbeknot be territory.deployed on terror, Uzbekistan has formally allowed only rescue and supply and rescue only allowed formally has Uzbekistan terror,

nard Gwertzman; March 25, 2005 25, March Gwertzman; nard tre wt acstos n fa in accusations with started - Kyrgyz relations, Akayev started to move away from from away move to started Akayev relations, Kyrgyz 45 he new president Kurmanbek Bakiyew was Bakiyew Kurmanbek president new he th the U.S. authorities was reached but only but reached wasauthorities U.S. the th

3. F 3. f the Manas air base was put on scales on put was base air Manas the f ears were that the president could a could president the that were ears

14 lsification of parliamentary parliamentary of lsification

On March 24 24 March On was toppled e country into a a into country e 2005 w 2005 -

15Es and 15Es

what hen the

CEU eTD Collection rm bod Frt te tt ws n o te eks i te ot oit pc basically space soviet post the in weakest the of one was state the First, abroad. from defines (2008) Huskey media free of emergence the and participation political encouraged have 90s of beginning the democr and rhetoric most Akayev‘s opposition. the domestic the Arguably was threatening challenges. significant several had regime Kyrgyz Internally own. its on issues domestic with cope to state the of inability and weaknesses inherited were o conditions underlying real the Eurasia, of heart the as Kyrgyzstan of role legi rhetoric the level of on the Although policy conduct. internal ca however dimension from threats of Observation predicted. have would perception realist the what notis later years ofcouple distancing and further terror waron duringthe realignment then approac systemic the by explained Such times. several orientation policy foreign disarray, in mainly was state The consistent. from far was Kyrgyzstan of policy the part the reviews,As of chapter first during costs was theresponsibilitytaking of ousting cover the Russia. to party, the Unsurprisingly contract. the in indicated time the within closed be should base terminating is government Kyrgyz that Russian with meeting after statement public a making while president, Kyrgyz 2009 February In Kyrgyzstan. for conditions financial improved on

turning into

a significanta threat the for elite n give a cleaner picture and provide rationale behind Kyrgyz foreign foreign Kyrgyz behind rationale provide and picture cleaner a give n further

disadvantages which disadvantages h. Divergence from western support in mid to late 90s, late to mid in support western from Divergence h. timacy behind the multivectorism the timacy behind h cnrc wt te ntd tts n ta the that and States United the with contract the 46

first two decades oftwoits decades first existence

later. erratic have

colleague colleague eair ant e thoroughly be cannot behavior impelled the country to seek aid aid seek to country the impelled

Medvedev

was historical the tc ntaie in initiatives atic sc policy such f ,

announced the foreign altering

CEU eTD Collection http://www.hrw.org/legacy/press/2002/09/kyrgyzstan 15 super response p and wellbeing his rule, his to threat a as leader the by considered were accusations Such scandal. gold the for accountable president the hold to parliament head. being after imprisoned, killed was commentator popular one instance For were died. had some Some journalists. on sue to authorities state for practice common a became It surrounding. closest his and president the involving scandal‖ ―gold the covering of activi their bycaused werejournalists on and attacks speech, change the free towards attitude such reports some to According 1993. since ha oppression independence, serious encounter of years first during freedom unprecedented enjoyed w media the instance For rhetoric. democratic his match not did behavior Akayev‘s that obvious became it when 1990s mid in started west the from divergence Kyrgyzstan‘s issues support. without external not able to address domestic meaningful centerwerethe thesubsidies from SovietUnion the of collapse the After gold. of amount small besides resources natural significant lacks Kyrgyzstan Third, control. to difficult them making way complicated extremely an in drawn are country th of lines border the addition, In region. the in goods of movement for hub a being from it prevents location disadvantageous Such capital. the from away kilometers 3000 over t center. the subsidies to from carrying thanks on he

Human Rights Watch report on freedom of speech in Kyrgyzstan can be found at at found be can Kyrgyzstan in speech freedomon of report Watch Rights Human

state 15 - presidential system. presidential

h ciia pit o te edrhp f h cuty a te tep o the of attempt the was country the of leadership the for point critical The

, is landlocked in the middle of the Eurasian continent with the nearest sea port sea nearest the with continent Eurasian the of middle the in landlocked is

Akayev simply dissolved the legislative body and transformed the state into a into state the transformed and body legislative the dissolved simply Akayev

- factsheet.htm 47

Second wasSecond the

gone

geography of Kyrgyzstangeography of , and th and , robably freedom. In freedom. robably

e countrywas e

d struck in the in struck

tre to started ty in ty hich hich e :

CEU eTD Collection http://www.hrw.org/legacy/press/2002/09/kyrgyzstan 16 eainhp ih h US my ae modnd t alwn te eie o suppress to regime the opposition leaderspolitical withoutconsequence. of diplomatic fear allowing it, emboldened have may U.S. the with relationship discusse factsheet Watch Rights Human The opposition. domestic with dealing and power on grip the strengthening 2008 (Cooley airfield the from off take each for $7000 additional receive and annually $2 million collect to managed Aydar Aydar. son president‘s by owned partly company private ag lease the from came however surrounding his and Akayev for benefit biggest The citizens. local 500 around employed and economy Kyrgyz the into year a million $40 contributed It well. as income of source significant on hands the bein than get Other and benefits. power economic on grip the increase further to opportunity domestic the from threats already of time the By

For more information on human rights record in Kyrgyzstan see Human Rights Watch Factsheet on Kyrgyzstan at at Kyrgyzstan on Factsheet Watch Rights Human see Kyrgyzstan in record rights human on information more For p.74 ; a stance against independent Islam began increasingly to resemble that of neighboring neighboring of that resemble to increasingly began Islam independent against stance on protes fire opened police when 2002, March in been dramatically has most assembly repeatedly, of violated freedom to right The critics. and rivals its against charges sho has government Akaev The problems. rights human serious has today Kyrgyzstan

fully wn marked intolerance for political opposition, lodging politically motivated criminal criminal motivated politically lodging opposition, political for intolerance marked wn . ygz lt a elite Kyrgyz ). ters, killing at least five people. In the meantime, Kyrgyzstan's aggressive aggressive Kyrgyzstan's meantime, the In people. five least at killing ters,

established established the 9/11 events and announcement of the war on terror Kyrgyzstan was was Kyrgyzstan terror on war the of announcement and events 9/11 the

d paradigm

autocracy

increased HR violations and violations HR increased lso viewed alliance with the U.S. as an opportunity for for opportunity an as U.S. the with alliance viewed lso reement on the base which was officially operating as a a as operating officially was which base the on reement .

T strategic g and he Afghan campaign Afghan he - the regime was not encountering any significant significant any encountering not was regime the factsheet.htm 4 8

ally

substancial

proposed however te .. ae a the was base U.S. the , 16

that Kyrgyzstan‘s new new Kyrgyzstan‘s that

provided an excellent an provided CEU eTD Collection 17 always rulers. interestsofautocratic served the Change survival. its to of according interests times several realigned regime Kyrgyz counterpart, Uzbek like Much for guarantees security regimesnondemocratic America‖. than get to place likely more a seemed Russia and regime, his for that interview her in out pointed Studies Asian Central in scholars leading the of on Oclott, Brill Martha protests. 2002 following year a than less in achieved was rights basing regarding Russia agreeme The regime. discredited his for support better providea could which power population result a have died protesters Several peaceful thesecurity forces. crackdown violent from a into resulted protest Mass regime. Akayev‘s for end the of beginning the was 2002 in Violence

Martha Brill Oclott Brill Oclott Martha

. physically mistreat non of dozens as Uzbekistan, L oss oss of . ak f ulc upr, ut have must support, public of Lack ―As the president became less democratic, he sought he democratic, less became president the ―As Interview with Bernard Gwertzman; March 25, 2005 25, March Gwertzman; Bernard with Interview civilian

ed, and thrown into Kyrgyz jails (Human Rights Watch 2002: p.1) 2002: Rights Watch (Human Kyrgyz jails into thrown and ed, lives deprived the president of any legitimacy left in the eyes of the eyes of the anyin of legitimacylives president left the deprived

i frin oiy retto wr ntcal ad have and noticeable were orientation policy foreign in s - violent Muslim believers have been rounded up, up, rounded been have believers Muslim violent 17

ute ecuae hm o lg wt the with align to him encouraged further

security guarantees security

nt withnt

as CEU eTD Collection 6 other countries of other the authoritarian region. citizens and law state, the towards Th authoritarianism. of form unprecedented absolutely developed has Turkmenistan independence obtaining After in entitypolitical Stalin to 1924. era,life in came a as Turkmenistan of state The far. so country the of conqueror last the been had Russia hord Tamerlane and Khan Genghis Persians, Turks, seen have lands Turkmen history invasions crossroad, important an was area the of experience the have not stat did Turkmenistan states, Asian Central other like Much substantial change a arena, hascome not yet(Anceschi 2008). Berdimukhamedov power of rise to death unexpected an following little a changed have things Although such. of lack complete a almost was policy foreign in orientation main democratic the and legitimacy lacked regime the suppressed, and weak was opposition The Turkmens). president The individual. Islam. radical and authoritarianism extreme an on founded was and regime lasting long Niyazov‘s opposition political as such threats internal neutralize and stability to state the of ability the to due largely possible became country the of president the by announced neutrality the that argue and independence following developments domestic and policy foreign Turkmenistan‘s between links review shall we chapter this In

Turkmenistan’s PositiveNeutrality: BecameHow it Possible ehood before ehood before early 20 th

century. republic wasThe even rs t pwr dcaoil ehd f oenne attitude governance, of method dictatorial power, to rise e rcamd isl ―Turkmenbashi‖ himself proclaimed ,

was when the country became more active on international international active on more when thecountrybecame

on a completely different level even compared to compared even level different completely a on

hogot history throughout the the creation of the Ascreation ofthe Soviet system.

ee rqet I its In frequent. were

of the leader and a and leader the of te ahr f all of father (the

the maintain cult of cult es. CEU eTD Collection August1997/volII2POSITIVENEUTRALITYASTHEBASISOFTHEFOREIGNPOLICYOFTUR http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/Volume2/June Turkmenistan of affairs minister offoreign and 18 raiain Dsie h fc ta Trmnsa bcm a ebr f ubr of number of member a became Turkmenistan that fact the Despite Cooperation Economic Organization. the and Development and Reconstruction for Bank European such of member I the Nations, United become the as country organizations the saw year following The in 1991. States December Independent of Commonwealth the joined Turkmenistan death. president‘s neutrality positive as Nation United in emphasized defined was country the of policy ran Foreign He ―victory‖. another him brought country, unchallenged takingagain, votes. of 99.5% independent an in already year, Elec rule. Soviet the during president first the becoming and ―wining‖ post in president the chief of elections first reforms the of result a as 1990 became In 1985. in Turkmenistan of He party communist legitimacy. democratic of kind any lacks president The Turkmens voted independence for and thecountry on alone. carried of 94% outcome: different completely yielded 91 October in referendum Another votes. year same Earlier delight great with met not was superpower 26 on independence under Turkmenistan Union Soviet the of collapse the Following

For more information on Turkmenistan's positive neutrality see neutrality positive Turkmenistan's on information more For the th

soviet space were held in the republic. Niyazov ran unchallenged, unchallenged, ran Niyazov republic. the in held were space soviet

October 1991. 1991. October ouain et o oe o keeping for vote to went population

s declaration on the country and remained the same way thesame remained on country until s declaration the and

Much like in the rest of the region t region the of rest the in like Much - trainl oeay ud te ol Bn, the Bank, World the Fund, Monetary nternational

51 by

Turkmen elites Turkmen Boris O. Shikhmuradov Shikhmuradov O. Boris

h Uin nat ih 8 of 98% with intact Union the KMENISTAN.pdf

(Al

- Niyazov rule declared declared rule Niyazov asm 1997 Bassam

tions held in following following in held tions . 18 –

he dissolve of the of dissolve he deputy prime minister minister prime deputy hs tts was status This

; p.391 ; f the of ). CEU eTD Collection railway line and a gas pipeline gas a and between railwaypipeline Turkmenistan Turkmenistan and Iran. line the as such projects, economic global to came it when active more was government The in associated member 1995. hand other the to down CIS in the role its reduced country the Moreover, region. the in influence Russian On agreement. military reduce to aiming organization international dominated an well, as GUUAM join not did Turkmenistan Russia a was which Treaty Securi Collective the join not did Turkmenistan however (CIS) States Independent of Commonwealth the was active less or more was country the where organization only The ofCentral Asianstates. summit offi Turkmenistan well. as Tajikistan by joined later was which (CAEU) Union Economic Asian them, Central of creation the joined resulting Kyrgyzstan year that Later 1994. in space economic common a creating 2002 (Kuru 90s of beginning the since integration regional resisting of any kind demonstratively aside, Turkmenistan stayed re Russian minoriti religious and ethnic tensions, Border While influence to attempts domestic its policies states (Pomfretof member 2008 any make international not does organization this as Nations United his the was in involved truly was of he none that theref sure activities, domestic his restricting were commitments made complete almost Turkmenbashi to isolation. country the international brought nonintervention for quest continuous This international

- nevnin uhd te Cnrl sa sae twrs cooperation, towards states Asian Central other pushed intervention bodies

the main goal of the government the of goal main the

; p.60 ; cially declined the offer of membership in 1998 at the at 1998 in membership of offer the declined cially ). Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan signed an agreement an signed Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan ). 52

s eooia ise ad er of fears and issues ecological es,

was to minimize minimize to was ore the only international body international only the ore foreign ; p.166 ; - Iran

influence. ). - Turkey

ty - CEU eTD Collection 20 http://eia.doe.gov/cabs/Iran/Background.html 19 As I will review below, low level of threat to his power and relatively high incomes from gas from incomes relativelyhigh and powerhis to threat of levellowwill below,review I As rule. his of character uncontested an is paper, this in included leaders two other as tactics, oppo against balance and china with deal beneficial a negotiate to managed he though: hurry a in not was Niyazov project. larger a of part small a onlywith left Turkmenistan government U.S. the of position mar customer gas its diversify and Russia from away move to trying consistently was Turkmenbashi independence gaining After balancing. of example typical the represents behavior policy foreign Turkmenistan‘s cubic billion 30 purchase to gas year of meters at per agreed China year same July In started. has China and Turkmenistan connecting pipeline a of construction the death, Trkmenbashi‘s after year prelim The hunger. energy its for lure excellent an were resources vast Turkmenistan‘s and world the in consumers 2006 therefore government, their (Hancock 2006 project by Iran with business Turkmenistan any have to forbidden were companies oil U.S. off. project the killed States United the from opposition the however 50 2 covered have would which project pipeline Bulgaria

Although the preliminary agreement was reached in May 2007, the pri the 2007, May in reached was agreement preliminary the Although

U.S. Energy Information Administrat Information U.S.Energy effort with China China with effort - rn ieie a js a at hc hs en sa been has which part a just was pipeline Iran

; p.74 ; a a ifrn soy Cia a aray n o te ags gas largest the of one already was China story: different a was the rtunistic Russia. The reason, why Niyazov has not used same used not has Niyazov why reason, The Russia. rtunistic inary agreement was reached and in May 2007, in less than a a than less in 2007, May in and reached was agreement inary

ion, U.S. Department of Energy: of Department U.S. ion, price of of price 195 USDcubic thousand per meters

e. rn n Blai wr a oto hwvr the however option an were Bulgaria and Iran ket. 53

ce was announced in 2008 in announced ce was 0 miles was announced in 1995 in announced was miles 0 vgd rm hn larger then from lvaged 20 .

CEU eTD Collection ukeitn a a uvvr h wud s ay en a hs ipsl o ean his retain to disposal of power‖position (Al his at means any use would who survivor a was of Turkmenistan president new the that proved clearly 1991 to up history ―Niyazov‘s notes, rightfully Al Kareem as and other it lost many republics soviet where former of power leaders communist maintain to managed Turkmenistan, of Party re Democratic He 2006). (Bohr world the in and repressive most the of one argue, many as formed has Niyazov policyTurkmenistan ofthreats of on presence evaluate their and significance. domestic review will I below Therefore opposition. political radical o or shortfall ethnic economic from comes threat the whether disregarding neutrality‖, ―positive Turkmenistan‘s explaining towards key the is of regime lack the for the threat above significant underlined have I As 2004). (Nissman tension internal meaningful maintai and threats eliminate to managed state the that emphasizes conclusion, his in Kuru work, Nissman‘s David to referring while however, Surprisingly to necessary is variables of range however cooperation. regional to came it when positive very was but 90s in building nation sought also which Uzbekistan to instance for be policy regional its explain to trying Turkmenistan to model state rentier the applies He Turkmenbashi. of policy isolationistforeign researches also (2002) Kuru Ahmet track. prices

and cotton export provided him with funds required to keep the poor country on on country poor the keep to required funds with him provided export cotton and concentrates more on economic determinants while understan while determinants economic on more concentrates - Bassam 1997:p.392) Bassam - named the Communist Party of Turkmenistan a a Turkmenistan of Party Communist the named con for account T he explanatory power of the rentier state model state rentier the of power explanatory he

ukeitns sltoit behavior. isolationist Turkmenistan‘s

authoritarian regimes authoritarian rlgos tensions, religious r saiiy without stability n ding of ding - asm (1 Bassam

ing contrary contrary ing

broader 997) CEU eTD Collection been openly violated by the state the by violated openly been have rights religious where country only the remains Turkmenistan well. as obvious been h minorities of Repression country. the in rituals religious conduct legally to allowed are orthodoxies Russian and Muslims Sunni only concerned is religion of freedom as far As ofopposition strengthened had suppression (Al while beggars citizens the ho an in manifestation the dissolved Securityforces himself. for palaces building making of leader the accused They people. 1000 around regime the against protest arrest, Garaev‘s following year a around After the murder to attempt an and treason He president. passed circumstancesaway in 1999 suspicious prisoin extremely in for charged and 1994 in back Uzbekistan in arrested was Garaev Koshali died. had them of Some imprisoned. were or activity ceased p.8 components‖ essential their are and interests national with linked inextricably crest the on notions destructive pursue to attempts suppressed resolutely has government the that confessed openly had he that, than more and vacuum avoid to order in governance control dictatorial his under state the bringing in intentions hiding not was Niyazov independence After 1990. in banned officially was party the oppression, continuous Encountering Unity. un mainly were activists country the in ―glastnost‖ of effects the when times communist to back go issue this of Roots republic. opp political the from coming Threat

). Opposition of any kind is not tolerated in the country, activists have either fl either have activists country, the in tolerated not is kind any of Opposition ). f h wv o pseudo of wave the of A h hd ttd isl h hs o dsryd h srcue f oit style soviet of structure the destroyed not has he himself stated had he As .

were weaker than in other soviet states (Al states soviet other in than weaker were ited in the ―Agzybirlik‖ the party which translates into English as English into translates which party the ―Agzybirlik‖ the in ited - eom n Glasnost and reform .

To openly exercise such rights the religion itself itself religion the rights such exercise openly To sto ws o a i ws rdtoal wa i the in weak traditionally was it as low was osition 55

- Bassam 1997 Bassam Acrig o i ―ua rgt are rights ―human him to According . - Bassam 1997 Bassam ; p.401 ).

; p.392) ; in 1995 1995 in . Opposition . (Panico 93 (Panico ur and the and ur ed, have ed, n. counted

has to has ad ;

CEU eTD Collection http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78845.htm 21 radical I radical while lastly Fa And of region well. problematic Uzbekistan‘s as in youth militants of unemployment Islamist of inflow the avoiding thus Afghanistan not activities does landscape the of characteristic Third, Afghanistan. in on anti from away staying country his against Islam radical other in as religion threat: such of lack the determining variables several defines He Union. Soviet the of collapse the since ever concern a quite been extremism has where region religious of the the rest unusual for count the in support find quite not did movements Islamist radical minorities religious of oppression such Despite religious activ been have worship of places where Union Soviet former the in country only the Turkmenistan making 1999, in destroyed were Ashgabat in Church Adventist Day Seventh the and temple Krishna reg successful for required are followers 500 least at and registered be

ly offered flyover rights and continuously warned the coalition to avoid civilian casualties casualties avoidcivilian to coalition the continuouslywarned and rights flyover lyoffered For more information on violation of religious rights see US Department of State report: report: State of Department US see rights religious of violation on information more For slamist movements, . The president also made it clear that he does not want to see any see to want not does he that clear it made also president The . ities have been been disrupted have by ities

First, Turkmen tribes historically do not define their identity according to to according identity their define not do historically tribes Turkmen First,

demolished eta Ain states Asian Central y Sai aahr 20) eerhs hs hnmnn quite phenomenon, this researches (2004) Parashar Swati ry.

y h atoiis I mn css vn rvtl held privately even cases many In authorities. the by , participants arrested andparticipants , interrogated.

Scn, iao hmef i nt encourage not did himself Niyazov Second, . 56

- terrorist coalition led by US. He He US. by led coalition terrorist gaa aly attracts valley rghana quite srto. Hari A istration. f vr insurgent avor

refugees from refugees 21

CEU eTD Collection n 97 Icesd rcs n yrcros ae o rsu hwvr mkn lse in losses making however, rescue for came hydrocarbons on prices Increased 1997. in USD84 to 1999 in million USD791 from drastically fell import cotton from revenues consequence, a As significantly. production the shrunk channels irrigation of maintenance of negligence and decline to started prices cotton when 90s late in emerged Problems and poorest smallest of tons million 1.4 to equaled 6 the was state the 1990s early In systems. and construction ofthe 50s 60s Canaland following irrigationKarakum of development the dras which production cotton was hydrocarbons from apart industry only The supplies. (Al gas and oil people for used and basically was Turkmenistan lands these of exploitation on based mostly of consequence a not o policy is international shortfall isolationist a president‘s Such world. the in lowest the of one and region the in lowest the is development economic of level the advantage inherited this Despite 5 and oil significant of owner the is country The

to expand their network in ‗Turkmenbashi‘s‘ domain (Parshar 2004: p.1). 2004: (Parshar domain in ‗Turkmenbashi‘s‘ network their to expand Islamists and the terrorists for ground fertile little been far so has there orientation, and an cultural strong with and state authoritarian the by prescribed non in engaged large youth a of with number But Islamists. radical of influence growing the to productive answer an of be could rate the that say cons forced that or Turkmenistan to in high very is employment not is This services. emergency and harvesting providing cotton maintenance, and construction road like activities of range cons forced The

economy rpin n ukeitn kee Turkmenistan in cription

c of all Soviet successor states Soviet all of successor otton per year. per otton - eiiu atvte o bnft o hi community their to benefit of activities religious th 57 l bt hrtg o sve rl wih was which rule soviet of heritage a but nly

largest producer of cotton in the world which world the in cotton of producer largest

Despite this t this Despite tically increased in soviet Turkmenistan in Turkmenistan soviet in increased tically ps

h yuh engaged youth the th

ags gs eore i te world. the in resources gas largest urkmenistan had urkmenistan (Pomfret2008 cription of Muslim youth Muslim of cription d ethnic ethnic d - asm 1997 Bassam

every year in a a in year every

socialization ; p.167 ;

the the p.386 ;

simplest,

million

). CEU eTD Collection

tensions and interests and tensions not Neo for appropriate more model Turkmen made u the is country, the in occurred omnibalancing and patronage superpower sought never has Turkmenistan why rule Turkmenbashi‘s for threats t due possible became balancing above, emphasized have we as But Russia: balancing of case classical a is to China with agreement Niyazov‘s regard this In is Turkmenistan almostcompletely Russiawhencomeson it dependent to expo concern. a became Russia on dependence the that with but significant, non export cotton

Orienting on a power which is further away and has less influence on the country. the on influence less has and away further is which power a on Orienting being being

and uncontested character of his regime his of character uncontested and present variablesanyas more. calne caatr f i regim his of character nchallenged 58

- els blne f power of balance realist

e o lack of domestic domestic of lack o .

. uh disposition Such Thus with

rting gas. the reason the domestic domestic

has against against

not

CEU eTD Collection 7 Conclusions7 oiy a psie n nurl Te ak f infcn cnen o te oetc level such approach tomade foreig domestic the on concerns significant of lack The neutral. and passive was policy Niyazov‘s foreign two cases. to pattern above similar a hasdeveloped never Turkmenistan maneuvering terms in alliance politics.of suc to thanks resistance internal outbalance to managed regime Uzbek power, coerciveUzbekistan wastermsit lacked Despiteindustrial inof the stronger force. fact that the regime activities of material enough Russia, with realigned he aid, financial western for return in imposed conditionality the of consequences the experienced directly he as soon As cooperation. beginning the in shortfall economic The 90s. of beginning the in freedom relative by encouraged opposition, the was it Kyrgyzstan of case In leaders. respective their to threat direct representing issues omnibalanci of cases clear represent threat domestic against balancing as behavior policy foreign its explain and regime the to threats of presence on relations intrastate observe to ability the a as omnibalancing David‘s Steven used has thesis The regimes. their of security the is leaders authoritarian for concern main the that was paper the of assumption The states. those of governments of activities international developments internal thesishasthree states observed The in of

support

n a te aetm e es eadn cnenn domestic concerning demanding less be time same the at and of independence was challenged by Akayev with western western with Akayev by challenged was independence of n policyn possible. ng. They have both experienced significant domestic significant experienced both have They ng.

rtcl rmwr wih rvds the provides which framework oretical s . Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan . Central Asiarelationto in which

could provide could cessful CEU eTD Collection Turkmenistan Turkmenistan The Regime The Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan Uzbekistan Uzbekistan behavior supports fully Karimov‘s Uzbekistan, of case In accordance. in realignments and alignments by followed threats, certain are There clear. very is Uzbekistan on picture the table the on see we As (Karimov) the and realignments motivations same with the pattern. threat; domestic addressing goal, primary its accomplishing in regime the help not did which behavior the tension, of point the a defines outbalance to ally an as o third the them; to threats major identifies one second the regime; the names column first The research. the of period time targeted the during cases selected in motivations their and developments key the covers briefly below table The (Niyazov) (Akayev)

efforts to put the efforts Ferghana Ferghana threat; dependence on on dependence independence independence export export Parliamentary Parliamentary no domestic domestic no movement in movement regarding oil regarding president to to president (IMU) since since (IMU) The threat The custody Islamist Islamist Russia Russia over

concern concern –

since since valley

David‘s theory.

Customs Union) Customs pipeline project project pipeline (Introduction of of (Introduction membership of of membership of membership Russia (Treaty (Treaty Russia Turkmenistan Russian as a as Russian Iran Partnership, Partnership, CST) 1992 CST) Balancing Balancing on Military on Military language, language, it Bulgaria Bulgaria second second Russia Russia - - Failed

with:

- 1995 1996 Turkey n te gemn lglzn rltos te orh column fourth the relations; legalizing agreement the and

- Dissatisfaction Dissatisfaction under the cover under cover the

of U.S. Support of will the tension; to deal with the the with to deal Russian forces Russian forces during Islamist Islamist during

invasion 99 invasion Inactivity of of Inactivity no political no political opposition opposition with: 2000 Table 1 Table -

on terror) U.S. air force) air force) U.S. basing rights to rights basing (agreement on (agreement during the war the during United States United United States States United

Realigning Realigning Partnership Partnership (Treaty on (Treaty on Strategic Strategic

with: 2001 following columns continue with with continue columns following -

2001 ne defines the power, chosen power, the defines ne

Dissatisfaction Dissatisfaction

refugees refugees organized flight flight organized massacre. massacre. worsening HR HR worsening strengthening strengthening record record critisizm for for critisizm opposition, opposition, for Andijon Andijon for increasing increasing number of of number protests, protests, Andijon with: - -

- 2002

2005 US

basing rights to rights basing allied relations) relations) allied (agreement on (agreement China Pipeline Pipeline China project project new treaty on new treaty force) force) Russia (The (The Russia Realigning Realigning Russian air Russian Russia Russia - with:

2005 - -

2003 2006

CEU eTD Collection o fcin o te uig clan ruling the of factions for oriented) only not (domestic) threats that indicates case the Moreover, security. regime of determinants of one as economic for effectively control variables. not does theory David‘s that showcases income. case of Kirgiz sources additional acquire to opportunity an as also regime the by viewed wa and rule Soviet the during subsidies central on relying heavily region, the of state weakest the was Kyrgyzstan motives. economic by explained be also can U.S. the with rapprochement opportuni an was confirms case the regard, this In there but present wasnot regime the to threat significant a partially, as only omnibalancing regime. Kyrgyz to support sufficient provided not pa a notfound have however,I U.S the with realignment Akayev‘s of terms In complete. also is Kyrgyzstan on matrix The concern. isa regime the of survival the when only relevant being as work David‘s confirms also case Turkmen assumpti key the eliminated have state the in security regime of level high the and threats domestic of lack the however Turkmenistan, in occurred not definitely has Omnibalancing export life. and rule his oil of year last the in of outbalanced successfully terms in Russia on dependence his was only him The for liking. concern his to according policy foreign the manage to Niyazov allowed which absent, were threats domestic Significant case. different completely a is Turkmenistan

sml ual t cry n ln. mrcn neet oad te onr was country the towards interest American alone. on carry to unable simply s

concerning concerning Omnibalancing focuses purely on political threats overlooking economic benefits economic overlookingthreats political purelyon Omnibalancing focuses ty to crush the opposition under the cover of American support. Kyrgyz support. American of cover the under opposition the crush to ty affect

regime security as well. Such interests can interests Such well. as security regime

the foreign policy in third world states world third in policy foreign the rticular point of tension, a particular case where Russia hadRussia where case particular a tension, of rticular point ,

support ing

61 h rgm‘ gi o power on grip regime‘s the

, on of the theory. Therefore Therefore theory. the of on

but interest but imply economic benefits benefits economic , s

hc h had he which

(domest r additional or ically CEU eTD Collection

beneficial step in terms step in beneficial power. of maintaining regime the of perspective with realignment weather security define to the in clans economic different Kyrgyzstan‘s of on interests conducted monetary and be conditions to has research further addition In alone. in policy realist in like Much repressions. further for justification

third world third , set by Job and David and Job by set ,

the U.S. was viewed by Kyrgyz authorities as a as Kyrgyzviewedwas by authorities U.S. the should move away from definitions of threats of definitions from away move should 62

theories ,

appr oaches oaches to foreign foreign to CEU eTD Collection International Studies Studies International Association power American Mark Besson Berdikeeva Saltanat 162 Sarah Badcock, Conflict and theInternationalRegional System Mohammed Ayoob Block?',Europe Non to Response Regional A Stephen Aris, Vol.2000,No. 77 52, STUDIES, 1, John Anderson Asia',Europe Forum Eurasia Quarterly,volum Central in Luca Anceschi Norms Authoritarian Studies,60:8,1321 Promotes Organization Thomas Ambrosio, (Winter1997) 1 Al References8

- Bassam Karem Bassam

(2009)'The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation: 'Tackling the Three Evils'. Three the 'Tackling Organisation: Cooperation Shanghai (2009)'The -

Asia Studies,61:3,457

– –

(2009)'The Search for Internal Enemi Internal for Search (2009)'The eiw f nentoa Suis 20) 3, 95 35, (2009), Studies International of Review

eeoi tasto i Es Ai? h dnmc o Ciee and Chinese of dynamics The Asia? East in transition Hegemonic Analyzing Turkmen Foreign Policy in Berdymuhamedov Era. China and China Era. Berdymuhamedov in Policy Foreign Turkmen Analyzing — Creating a Framework for Civil Society in Kyrgyzstan. EUROPE Kyrgyzstan. in Society Civil for Framework a Creating

- (2008)'Catching the the (2008)'Catching

The evolution of authoritarianism in Turkmenistan Volume 5, Number5, Volume Turkmenistan in authoritarianism of evolution The

1344 – –

Loss of Uzbekistan:LossImplications of US(2005). for 19) h tid ol scrt peiaet Sae Making, State predicament: security world third The (1995)

e 6e (2008).

- traditional - 93

—

'Shanghai Spirit': How the Shanghai Cooperation Shanghai the How Spirit': 'Shanghai 482

euiy hlegs r n Anti an or Challenges Security

es',Europe - – Asia Studies,61:1,157 Asia 1 Copy 112

right - _ Western Western British - ASIA - Asia —

CEU eTD Collection security post in Ryth Deyermond 1992 Steven David 233 Steven David in outputidentity and Kazakhstan‘s policy.foreign N. Sally Cummings Kyrgyzstan Alexander Cooley AlexCooley Kathleen Collins Forum, Gregory Cleason Report http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/turkmenistan.pdf Information Defense for Center the in Studies Post Barry Buzan ABohr N. Blaikie

- 56 - 93, 93, pp. 127

EUROPE –

Uzbekistan –

Designing Social Research, Designing Research, Social Polity(2000) Press –

– – - US bases and democratizationbases and US Central in Asia, Orbis 1, 52: 2 Winter – Soviet Asia, Central

Explain - 19) epe Sae ad er A Aed fr nentoa Security International for Agenda An Fear: and States People, (1991) - h te hr Wrd tl Mtes Itrainl euiy o 1, winter 17, vol Security International Matters; Still World Third the Why 159 ASIA STUDIES -

Cold War Cold Era War ComparativeNo. Vol.2 35, Politics, (Jan.,2003),171 pp.

– - Inter

Depoliticizing Manas: The domestic cosequence of U.S. presence in presence U.S. of cosequence domestic The Manas: Depoliticizing – aroha eeoy Multi Hegemony? Matrioshka

Domestic and RegionalDomestic Policy. 1998 RIIA

Eurasian bridge or murky waters between east and west? Ideas, Ideas, west? and east between waters murky or bridge Eurasian ing third world alignments; 1991, World Politics, January 1991, pp. 1991, Politics,January 1991, World worldalignments; third ing - State Cooperation in Central A Central in Cooperation State

, 7, Vol. 53, 2001, No. 1077 Review of ReviewInternational Studies (2009) of

–

- ukeitn 20 aalbe at: available 2007 Turkmenistan, eee hgmnc competiti hegemonic leveled sia from the CIS to the Shanghai the to CIS the from sia

– 1095

- 190

n and on 008

CEU eTD Collection Science ReviewScience 85(2) Ted Hopf 5 (2008)p. 4 no. 6, Quarterly,volume EurasiaForum and Powers.China Great the Between Eugene Huskey in PoliticalOriginal Science Concepts Herz Manuscript, sciences. social LSE, Bob Hancke Reality',Europe J. David Galbreath, Uzbeks Kyrgyzstan in of and Tajikistan',Europe Matteo Fumagalli, Review 2007 impli Matteo Fumagalli EuropeKyrgyzstan. Boris Sergeyev & Joseph Fletcher 214, (10) DigestPolish(The 1 ForeignAffairs/2004,Foreign pages: Affairs Digest), issue: Adam Eberhardt -

ain o Ubksa‘ rprceet ih usa Itrainl oiia Science Political International Russia. with rapprochement Uzbekistan‘s of cations

John. John.

―Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma.‖ International Relations: International Dilemma.‖ Security the and Internationalism ―Idealist 91 ―oaiy te Offense the ―Polarity, 1991,

Intelligent Research Design. A guide for IntelligentDesign.AResearch in guide researchers beginning for the - Asia Asia Studies,60:9,1623 Frin oiy f h Rpbi o Ubksa 1991 Uzbekistan of Republic the of Policy Foreign : – (2007)'Framing ethnic minority mobilisation in Central Asia: The cases The Asia: Central in mobilisation minority ethnic (2007)'Framing

- oeg Plc i a ueal Sae Krysa a Mltr Enterpot Military as Kyrgyzstan State: Vunerable a in Policy Foreign – Asia No. Studies, Vol. 54, (Mar., 2002),251 2 pp. (2008)'Putin's Russia and the 'New Cold War': Interpreting Myth and Myth Interpreting War': Cold 'New the and Russia (2008)'Putin's

475 lgmns n rainet i Cnrl sa Te ainl and rationale The Asia: Central in realignments and Alignments - 493.

2008.

– –

Islam and Intolerance in Central Asia: The case of case The Asia: Central in Intolerance and Islam —

Edited byEdited (2000) Andrew Linklater - ees Blne adWr‖ mrcn Political American War,‖ and Balance, Defense

1630 65

Asia Studies,59:4,567 Asia - 275 — -

03 Te Polish The 2003. 59

193 -

CEU eTD Collection Islami',Europe Emmanuel Karagiannis, Studies,60:6,1073 Region',Europe Andrei Kazantsev, 3 No. 4, 67 (2006) p. Volume Quarterly, Forum Eurasia and China Gas. Natural for Thirst China‘s Hancock J. Kathleen 2002, 1231, Uzbekistan, in Cholpan Sulaymon Abdulhamid and Halim Kara CO: 1992 Publishers, Boulder, Rienner Lynne Brian Job UniversityPrinceton 1976. Press, Jervis Robert No. 8, 53, 2001, 1177 Ryan in Development Kennedy & T. John Ishiyama AlisherIlkhamov No. (Mar., 17, 1 Vol. 1996), pp. 53 Jude Howell

–

- – - 87

142 - (1992), The Insecurity Dilemma: Dilemma: Insecurity The (1992),

Reclaiming National Literary Heritage: the Rehabilitation of Abdurauf Fitrat Abdurauf of Rehabilitation the Heritage: Literary National Reclaiming – Asia Studies,58:2,261 -

Asia Perception Perception and Misperception International in Politics.New Jersey: Russia, Ukraine, Armenia Ukraine, Russia, oig ih rniin insights transition, with Coping

– —

Controllable Democracy in Uzbekistan. Middle DemocracyControllable Uzbekistan. report in 222;East 2002.

20)Rsin oiy n eta Ai a Asia Central in Policy (2008)'Russian

1088 –

1191 -

Escaping Russia, Looking to China: Turkmenistan Pins Hopes on Hopes Pins Turkmenistan China: to Looking Russia, Escaping

20)Pltcl sa i Ubksa: ib ut Hizb Uzbekistan: in Islam (2006)'Political

- 68

—

280

and Kyrgyzstan and

- 66

uepeietaim n Pltcl Party Political and Superpresidentialism ainl euiy n hr Wrd States. World Third In Security National rm ygztn Tid ol Quarterly, World Third Kyrgyzstan. from EUROPE

EUROPE - ASIA STUDIES ASIA d h Csin Sea Caspian the nd - ASIA STUDIES ASIA ,

Vol. 54, No. 54, Vol. - arr al Tahrir

, Vol. ,

CEU eTD Collection in the postin McFau AsianboundaryCentral dispute',Europe Nick Megoran, Books J. John Mearsheimer Prevention P Conflict G. Monty Marschall Quarterly, Forum and China Eurasia (2008) No.; p Volume 6 15 Marat Daily Eurasia Issue: Monitor Volume: 3 50March14, 2006 Erica Marat the Canada. politicalmeetings of scienceAmerican association, Toronto, Fabrice Lehoucq Journal international of Turkish relations,volume number spring1, 1, 2002 Ahmet Kuru PeaceStudies UniversityProgram, Peace Studiesof (2004). Intern Asia. Central Studies Regional Struggle? Social a for Pioneer a or Organization Sharon Komash 6Quarterly,volume (2008). Alisher Khamidov

Erica Erica l M. l - communist communist (2002). world. Politics World –

–

- The fourth wave of democracy and dictatorship: Noncooperative transitions transitions Noncooperative dictatorship: and democracy of wave fourth The BAKIYEV FACES STRONG, MATURING OPPOSITION IN KYRGYZSTAN; IN OPPOSITION MATURING STRONG, FACES BAKIYEV

Criminalization of the Kyrgyz State before and after the Tulip Revolution. Tulip the after and before State Kyrgyz the of Criminalization The Rentier State Model and Central Asian Studies: The Turkmen Case. Turkmen The Studies: Asian Central and Model State Rentier The (2007)'On researching 'Ethnic Conflict': epistemology, politics, and a a and politics, epistemology, Conflict': 'Ethnic researching (2007)'On – -

ool. Report -

eie, Comp Regimes, - h Ilmc oeet f Uzbekistan of Movement Islamic The

Conflict Trends in Africa a Macro a Africa in Trends Conflict - ygztns niihd eouin Cia n Ersa Forum Eurasia and China Revolution. Unfinished Kyrgyzstan‘s

2001, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York: Norton Norton York: New Politics, Power Great of Tragedy The 2001,

tto, n Mltr Cus n ai Aeia 2009 America. Latin in Coups Military and etition, - Asia Studies,59:2,253 67

Comparative Perspective. Africa Perspective. Comparative – — -

22 n nentoa Terrorist International An

277

ational CEU eTD Collection Events, Sandhurst: Conflict Sandhurst: Events, Pikulina researchreport,RFE/RL 7. January 1993, Christopher Panico the Brookings 2008, I Stewart Patrick and E. Susan Rice post Scott Radnitz, KluwerEnterprises. academic publishers 2001 Kathryn Anderson Richard, Pomfret AsiaSouth Analysis30.2004 09. Group P Oclott Martha 2008communism 55(4) Bertil Nygren p. 186. 1994, David Nissman 14 June 2005. Daniel: Mckivergan rsa Swati arashar

- soviet Space: Uzbekistan',EuropeThe case of

M. -

Uzbekistan in the Mirror of Military Security: A Historical Preface to Current to Preface Historical A Security: Military of Mirror the in Uzbekistan

- –

20)Wihn te oiia ad cnmc oiain fr irto in migration for motivations economic and political the (2006)'Weighing Putin‘s Use of Natural Gas to Reintegrate CIS Region. Problems of post of Problems Region. CIS Reintegrate to Gas Natural of Use Putin‘s , Interview Gwertzman;March with 25, 2005 Bernard – -

Turkmenistan: A Central Asian State Without Religious Extremism, Extremism, Religious Without State Asian Central A Turkmenistan: Trmnsa (ntasomd, urn Hsoy Vl 9, o 582, No. 93, Vol. History, Current (Un)transformed', 'Turkmenistan

nstitution. US Policy in Uzbekistan. The project for the new American century. American new the for project The Uzbekistan. in Policy US -

Trmnsa Uafce b te id o Dmcai Change,‖ Democratic of Winds the by Unaffected ―Turkmenistan Studies Research RMA, Studies November 1999. Centre,

–

Index of State Weakness in the Developing World. World. Developing the in Weakness State of Index

Calne Fcn Sal n Medium and Small Facing Challenges ;

- Asia Studies,58:5,653

—

677

- Sized - CEU eTD Collection Research, Juneperceptions,volume Research, 2, Turkmeni Shikhmuradov (New York, 1997), Macmillian Press, p. 76 States: Independent of Commonwealth the in Politics Security Studies,60:4,643 Asia a Institutions Professionalism, into Investigation an Kyrgyzstan: in Aibek Ilyasov, and Balihar Sanghera, Affairs,6,International 2008 A Roy Politics, World Dan Reiter PoliticsPast,‖ pp.490 46, World Dan Reiter NJ. Princeton Richard Pomfret, (2008). 6 volume Richard Pomfret

llison tn Mnsr o frin far o te republic the of affairs foreign of Ministry stan.

- -

1994, ―Learning, Realism, and Alliances: The Weight of the Shadow of the of Shadow the of Weight The Alliances: and Realism, ―Learning, 1994, erig Raim ad line: h Wih o te hdw f h Past the of Shadow the of Weight The Alliances: and Realism, Learning, - Vol.46, (July, 490 No.4 1994),

usa eugn? ocws apin o cec Goga o peace' to Georgia 'coerce to campaign Moscow's resurgent? Russia

oi O. Boris

– -

Turkmenistan‘s Foreign Policy. China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, Forum Eurasia and China Policy. Foreign Turkmenistan‘s 1995, —

661

h Eoois f eta Asia Central of Economies The

–

Positive neutrality as the Basis of Foreign Policy of of Policy Foreign of Basis the as neutrality Positive - 526

- August 1997 (2008)'The Social Embeddedness of Professions of Embeddedness Social (2008)'The

69 - 526

f uky Cne o Strategic of Center Turkey. of , Princeton University Press, Press, University Princeton , d Emotions',Europe nd

h Suhr Belt Southern The - CEU eTD Collection Waltz Kenneth Kenneth Waltz Stephen M. Walt Embassy US Uzbekistan in Relations. Caroline Thomas Asia Central and EU The Asia #South Analysis paper 1130; 2004 Group, Parashar Swati Studies,60:6,1089 E. Angela Stent, In,‖ International 72Back pp. Security 19(1), L. Randall Schweller Studies,56:7,1059 Studies,56:7,1059 China integration between theand countries',Europe Centralfive Asian Hsiu Wu,

Ling and Chien Chen, -

1979, InternationalTheory of Politics (2008)'Restoration and Revolution in Putin's Foreign Policy',Europe Foreign Putin's in Revolution and (2008)'Restoration - -

— — 1987,Origins of Cornell Alliances Ithaca: University Press Turkmenistan: A Central Asian State without Religious Extremism; Extremism; Religious without State Asian Central A Turkmenistan: –

1106 1080 (2004)1080

18) I Sac o Scrt: h Thi The Security: of Search In (1987), -

94 ―adaoig o Poi: rnig h Rvsoit State Revisionist the Bringing Profit: for ―Bandwagoning 1994, : NewStrategy a 2007 Partnership for

InvestmentClimate Statement -

Hsun -

'The regional prospects for economic - 70 107

–

Turkmenistan, 2008 - d ol i International in World rd 2013‘ (Brussels, 2007). (Brussels, 2013‘ - Asia

- Asia Asia