The Formation of Kyrgyz Foreign Policy 1991-2004
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE FORMATION OF KYRGYZ FOREIGN POLICY 1991-2004 A Thesis Presented to the Faculty Of The FletCher SChool of Law and DiplomaCy, Tufts University By THOMAS J. C. WOOD In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2005 Professor Andrew Hess (Chair) Professor John Curtis Perry Professor Sung-Yoon Lee ii Thomas J.C. Wood [email protected] Education 2005: Ph.D. Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University Dissertation Formation of Kyrgyz Foreign Policy 1992-2004 Supervisor, Professor Andrew Hess. 1993: M.A.L.D. Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University 1989: B.A. in History and Politics, University of Exeter, England. Experience 08/2014-present: Associate Professor, Political Science, University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC. 09/2008-07/2014: Assistant Professor, Political Science, University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC. 09/2006-05/2008: Visiting Assistant Professor, Political Science, Trinity College, Hartford, CT. 02/2005 – 04/2006: Program Officer, Kyrgyzstan, International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES) Washington DC 11/2000 – 06/2004: Director of Faculty Recruitment and University Relations, Civic Education Project, Washington DC. 01/1998-11/2000: Chair of Department, Program in International Relations, American University – Central Asia, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. 08/1997-11/2000: Civic Education Project Visiting Faculty Fellow, American University- Central Asia, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Languages Languages: Turkish (advanced), Kyrgyz (intermediate), Russian (basic), French (intermediate). iii ABSTRACT The Evolution of Kyrgyz Foreign PoliCy This empirical study, based on extensive field research, interviews with key actors, and use of Kyrgyz and Russian sources, examines the formation of a distinct foreign policy in a small Central Asian state, Kyrgyzstan, following her independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Lacking foreign policy traditions as a separate entity from the USSR, Kyrgyzstan synthesized a foreign policy from anew. In Chapter 1, I examine the literature on nationalism, ideology and nation-building in a post-imperial context and evaluate Kyrgyzstan as a case study from the perspective of small state literature. In Chapters 2 and 3, I analyze the arrival of the modern state and nation- building efforts in Kyrgyzstan after 1991. I argue that Kyrgyz nationalism is restrained by the need to reconcile her large non-Kyrgyz minority population, dictating a typical small state foreign poliCy esChewing construCtion of a capsule state, or irredentism. In Chapter 4, I desCribe the Kyrgyz foreign policy establishment, her foreign ministry, and various roles of president, parliament, and opposition, in foreign affairs. I present the sources of Kyrgyz foreign policy and recount its emerging shape, arguing Kyrgyz elites synthesized a foreign policy by grafting small state needs onto a Soviet template. In Chapter 5 I outline her relations with former Soviet neighbors since independence. In Chapter 6 I describe relations with key non-Soviet neighbors in her foreign poliCy, demonstrating how Kyrgyz have prioritized relations with certain states like Iran and Turkey as part of a broader foreign policy strategy, although ideological attractions of Turkish or Iranian models are negligible. In Chapter 7, I traCe Kyrgyzstan’s unfolding relations with China via a case study of the disputed Kyrgyz- iv Chinese frontier settlement. I conclude that Kyrgyz elites successfully created a strategic outlook surmounting numerous challenges since 1991, contradicting the widespread image prevalent in the literature on Central Asia of Kyrgyzstan as semi- failed state lacking any strategic foreign policy. Overall I argue that Kyrgyzstan’s foreign policy is directed toward recreating a stable state system in her neighborhood to replace the vanished Soviet precursor. Kyrgyz elites have built upon the Soviet template operationalizing a new strategic outlook oriented around small state behavior but rooted in the past, arguably better at coping with conventional challenges than newer transnational threats. v To my mother, Susannah W. Wood. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend particular thanks to Professor Andrew Hess, whose wise counsel, support and patience over the years was key to this endeavor. Many of the views presented in these pages have their origins in intensive discussions in the Friday faculty seminar of the American University-Central Asia Politics Department, in the Steinbrau, Bishkek, 1998-2004. I would like to warmly thank my friends and colleagues at AUCA, Bishkek, for their support in this project over the years, including Askat Dukenbaev, Bill Hansen, Martha Merrill, Barrie Hebb, Talatbek Masadykov. Askat Dukenbaev arranged interviews and introductions that led in vital directions, and for answering many miscellaneous questions that cropped up. I am also indebted to Bill Hansen for his severe editing recommendations. Chong raxmat, dostlar! I am very grateful to Ambassador Muratbek Imanaliev for his kind help in arranging interviews and access to materials. AUCA graduates Azamat Sakiev, Kyialbek and Kumar Bekbolotov, helped at various times with valuable research assistance. vii PREFACE This dissertation examines the way in which a small and relatively isolated former Soviet Republic, Kyrgyzstan, Coped with the Challenge of creating an independent foreign policy from scratch. After almost fifteen years after independence, Kyrgyzstan’s foreign policy has departed the theoretical realm of possible, expected behaviors, and has left a track record meriting examination. I evaluate Kyrgyz foreign policy in the light of almost fifteen years of Kyrgyz independence, 1991-2004, with particular emphasis on the foreign policy legacy of President Askar Akaev and his administration, incumbent throughout this period and ousted in a revolt in March 2005. I wish to examine a set of inter-linked questions about Kyrgyz foreign policy behavior. Contrary to any image of being a candidate failed state, I will argue that a Kyrgyz foreign policy establishment has both developed and been able to leverage Kyrgyz independence and their new place in the international order successfully. They have formulated a discernible foreign policy outlook and behavior that is generally pragmatic and shaped only indirectly by nationalist ideology. I argue that it is unlikely to be altered by the 2005 regime overthrow in Kyrgyzstan, especially given that the origins of most of the new interim government that took power in March 2005 are from within the Akaev politiCal establishment. viii I examine different foreign policy options open to Kyrgyzstan at independence and contrast them to the final actual options chosen by foreign policy makers. The collapse of Soviet power allowed new ideas and influences to be felt in what had been one of the more isolated places on earth, from the viewpoint of exposure to influenCes outside the USSR. After 1991, some newly-felt ideological alternatives for external- orientation ranged from Islamic identity, and Pan-Turkism, to some form of “reintegration”; the continuation of the Soviet Union under some other guise. Another possibility included the western liberal-democratic model, or the local Turco-Persian authoritarian-tribal tradition which antedates the Soviet experience. A different but important direction after independence was orientation toward an ‘Asian model’, understood by Kyrgyz leaders as market economies guided by strong governments. China was the main inspiration for this view, but Kyrgyz leaders also began to look with great interest at Korea, Malaysia, and Indonesia. None of these orientations and models of course are or were mutually-exclusive, but they helped to frame a debate about policy choices. I will assess to what extent these ideologies/poliCy ChoiCes/operating Codes have influenced and shaped post-independence Kyrgyz national identity, and to what degree they are manipulated by Kyrgyz élites to further their own aims. This is a topic of special relevance as the new state system in Eurasia continues to be challenged by massive strains unleashed by nationalism and the fragmentation of the old constituent parts into independent republics in the post-Soviet era. Kyrgyzstan is an example of a fragile, developing state that has no strong traditions of a cultural nationalist ideology underpinning the politiCal unit. ix At the same time however, Kyrgyzstan is simultaneously a microcosm of internal and external challenges that confront many of the other former republics of the USSR, and also many of its larger Central Asian neighbors. Of very reCent vintage, Kyrgyz statehood is neither well institutionalized, nor is it possessed of widespread cultural memory of any autonomy that might bolster the legitimaCy of independent statehood. Kyrgyzstan has large populations of non-titular minorities, to the extent that in 1991 Kyrgyz were barely a majority in the Kirghiz SSR (ca.52%).1 Like other former Soviet states, Kyrgyzstan’s economy faced wrenching obstacles calling for radical solutions that led only to further economic disaster. As with its Moslem Central Asian neighbors, Kyrgyzstan balanced the rediscovery of a wider international Islamic community with its own internal commitment to maintaining the secularism firmly implanted during the previous seventy years. Kyrgyzstan also found itself freer than in the past to explore new foreign policy orientations and directions with more powerful states, near and distant, whose contacts had formerly,