DOCSLIB.ORG

Uzbekistan's New Course and the Construction of Central Asia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Uzbekistan's New Course and the Construction of Central Asia Uzbekistan’s new course and the construction of Central Asia “The peculiarity of Uzbekistan’s position in understanding Central Asia is that it proceeds from the idea that Afghanistan is an integral part of Central Asia and it should be actively involved in regional economic processes and infrastructure projects,” mentions Rustam Burnashev, professor at the Kazakh-German University in the article, written specifically for CABAR.asia Follow us on LinkedIn Since the beginning of 2017, the time of the adoption of the Action Strategy for the five priority areas of development in 2017-2021,[1] Uzbekistan began to actively transform its regional policy, the goal of which, in accordance with the Strategy, was “to create a belt of security, stability and good-neighborliness around Uzbekistan.” The strategy does not fix the spatial content of this “environment”: whether it is only about the countries bordering with Uzbekistan or the coverage is wider and includes such actors as Russia, China, Iran, or Turkey. Despite the fact that back in September 2016, being the Prime Minister of Uzbekistan, Shavkat Mirziyoyev noted that “the main priority of Uzbekistan’s foreign policy activity is the Central Asian region” and singled out “Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan” as the country’s closest neighbors,[2] the line on the priority of Central Asia remains in the future. In this regard, the conference “Central Asia: One Past and Common Future, Cooperation for Sustainable Development and Mutual Prosperity” held in November 2017 in Samarkand under the auspices of the United Nations is indicative. It can be assumed that the “belt of security, stability and good-neighborliness” means precisely Central Asia. Nevertheless, the question of what is meant in this case by “Central Asia” itself and what, from the point of view of Uzbekistan, are the main structuring lines, remains open. History of regionalization in the “Central Asian” format Traditionally, when speaking about “Central Asia”, we are talking about the space uniting five post-Soviet states – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan – and fixed at the level of international documents in early 1993 within the framework of the summit held in Tashkent.[3] The view of the regionalization of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan’s new course and the construction of Central Asia Uzbekistan as “Central Asia” remained dominant throughout the 1990s. Its institutionalization went through a number of structures: first, the Common Economic Space, then the Central Asian Economic Community and, finally, the Central Asian Cooperation Organization. However, already at that time it was clear that regionalization within the framework of the Central Asia project was primarily of an ideological nature. First, from an economic point of view, Central Asia could not be considered as a single entity, since it included the republics that were part of the Soviet Union in different economic regions: Kazakhstan and Central Asia. Second, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the specification of the Central Asian countries only grew – both because of their desire to ensure economic independence and because of the choice of various models of economic reform. The most striking manifestation of this specification was the accession of Kyrgyzstan to the WTO in 1998, which was not coordinated with other countries – Bishkek’s partners in the Central Asian Economic Community. Afghan Traditions of the Uzbek Foreign Policy Third, from the point of view of security in the countries that are included in Central Asia, securitization of a number of key issues was carried out in different ways. First of all, this applies to such issues as the 1992-1997 civil war in Tajikistan, the situation in Afghanistan in the second half of the 1990s, the attitude of states to a number of internal political, economic, and societal issues. Regionalization in the format of five countries was complicated by the fact that, in parallel with regional projects, there were no less strong constructs that went beyond the borders of the five republics – for example, the Shanghai Five and the Collective Security Treaty. Equally important was the concept of an “expanded” region, built on the idea of ​ ”Eurasian reintegration” and proposed by the President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev in March 1994 – the Eurasian Union. On its basis, in 2000, the Eurasian Uzbekistan’s new course and the construction of Central Asia Economic Community (EurAsEC) was created, comprising Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan. Taken together, the implementation of these initiatives clearly testifies to the dominant importance for Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan[4] in the late 1990s – early 2000s of ties that go beyond “Central Asia”. Taken together, the above-mentioned led to the fact that by the 2000s, the final regionalization in the format of Central Asia did not happen. The ties of the five Central Asian countries with external players, primarily Russia, remained too strong to speak of the formation of an independent region. Moreover, in October 2004 Russia joined the Central Asian Cooperation Organization. In 2006, in connection with the accession of Uzbekistan to the EurAsEC, the two organizations merged, which de facto meant the liquidation of the Central Asian Cooperation Organization. In the second half of the 2000s, an attempt was made to revive the Central Asian project in the form of the idea of ​​a Central Asian Union, expressed by the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev. However, this initiative did not receive support on a practical level. Moreover, for example, President of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov, in response to this initiative, pointed out the impossibility of a union in the format of Central Asia, since “the policies and directions in which the leaders of the states This content is for registered users only. Please login. are engaged should be comparable, but not contradictory, especially when it comes to reforms and visions of the prospects for their development”.[5] The final departure from the concept of Central Asia may be associated with the launch of the mechanism of a single customs space within the framework of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia in 2010, which clearly fixes the exit of Kazakhstan from the economic space of the Central Asian countries. The creation in the mid-2010s of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which, along with Kazakhstan, included Kyrgyzstan, further exacerbated this fragmentation. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the idea of ​​the unity of Central Asia was not implemented, it was an effective political and ideological factor in the 1990s and 2000s. This concept remains such a factor at the present time. It makes sense to designate the corresponding position as a “quasi-region”, in other words, as a nominal region, which is organized more by an idea or term (in our case, the term “Central Asia”) than by regional Uzbekistan’s new course and the construction of Central Asia structures. Moreover, for Uzbekistan, the issue of regional policy remained relevant, at least from the point of view of organizing joint water use in the basins of the Syr Darya and Amu Darya rivers, as well as building routes for entering world markets. This determined the transformation of the regional policy of Uzbekistan in the second half of the 2010s. Regional policy of Uzbekistan in the second half of the 2010s The first steps taken by Uzbekistan in the framework of changing its regional policy towards its activation were actions aimed at normalizing relations with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Until 2017, Tashkent’s relations with these two countries were burdened by a whole range of problematic points. Relations with Bishkek were complicated both by the consequences of the interethnic conflict in Kyrgyzstan in 2010, the main victims of which were ethnic Uzbeks living in the southern regions of this republic, and by the unresolved border issues. Nevertheless, already in September 2017, the Treaty on the Uzbek-Kyrgyz state border was signed between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, about 85% of the state border was agreed, and restrictions were lifted from a number of checkpoints.[6] The solution on border issues is considered by Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan as a complex task, which includes not only border delimitation, but also cooperation in such areas as the use of water and energy resources, the development of border areas and interregional cooperation, the development of transport infrastructure, in particular – a multimodal corridor Tashkent – Andijan – Osh – Irkeshtam – Kashgar. An indicator of the normalization of relations between the two countries was the participation of a Kyrgyz delegation in the elections to the Legislative Chamber of the Oliy Majlis of the Republic of Uzbekistan in December 2019 as international observers, first time in the history of Kyrgyz Uzbek relations. Uzbekistan begins to propose a new ideologeme – “Central Asia – a region of opportunities”. A similar pace of building bilateral relations is observed between Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. If earlier there was a visa regime between the neighboring republics and there was practically no direct communication, with the exception of the border, then in 2017 flights between Dushanbe and Tashkent were resumed, the Galaba-Amuzang railway was restored, an international road was opened on the Samarkand-Penjikent section, as well as a number of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Post-Soviet Space and Uzbekistan in the International Division of Labour from Transition to Capital Accumulation
    THE POST-SOVIET SPACE AND UZBEKISTAN IN THE INTERNATIONAL DIVISION OF LABOUR FROM TRANSITION TO CAPITAL ACCUMULATION A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities 2021 Franco Galdini School of Social Sciences Department of Politics Contents List of Figures 6 List of Acronyms 7 Abstract 10 Declaration and Copyright Statement 11 Acknowledgements 12 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER 13 From Transition to Capital Accumulation in the Post-Soviet Space 13 0. INTRODUCTION 13 1. FROM TRANSITION TO CAPITAL ACCUMULATION: POSITIONING THE THESIS, RESEARCH QUESTIONS, AND CONTRIBUTION 14 2. METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH METHODS 21 2.1. Form analysis: Global content, national forms 21 2.2. Class and Internal relations 22 2.3. Levels of generality 24 2.4. Research methods 25 3. CHAPTER STRUCTURE AND KEY ARGUMENTS 26 4. THE LIMITS OF THE DISSERTATION 31 5. CONCLUSION 32 CHAPTER 1 34 A Monopoly on ‘Normality’: A Review of the Literature on Transition as Development 34 0. INTRODUCTION 34 1. DEVELOPMENT IN TRANSITION 35 1.1. Neoliberal theory 35 1.2. Developmental state theory 37 1.3. Dependency theory 41 1.4. Methodological nationalism common to the literature 43 2. ON ‘NORMALITY’ AND EXCEPTIONALISM (1): TRANSITOLOGY IN THE FSU 44 2.1. The roaring 1990s: (revolutionary) shock therapy and (evolutionary) gradualism 46 2.2. Permanent exceptionalism: From the 2000s to today 51 3. ON ‘NORMALITY’ AND EXCEPTIONALISM (2): TRANSITOLOGY IN UZBEKISTAN 54 3.1. Neoliberal transitology: Uzbekistan as negatively exceptional 55 3.1.a. The 1990s: Non/slow/late reform and the ‘Uzbek growth puzzle’ 55 3.1.b.
    [Show full text]
  • Kazakhstanskaya Pravda
    Unofficial translation CICA: Indivisible Security, Increased Confidence Over the years of independence, Kazakhstan has sponsored many initiatives and projects aimed at strengthening security, stability and sustainable development at the regional and global levels. The "peacekeeping portfolio" of our country starts, inter alia, with the proposal of Elbasy1 Nursultan Nazarbayev to convene the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA). Almost three decades have passed since that moment. Now, once CICA started its practical work, the relevance and potential of this international structure have become evident. In an interview with the Executive Director of the CICA Secretariat, Ambassador Kairat Sarybay, we found out about the current state of the Conference and the development priorities during Kazakhstan's Chairmanship in CICA. The idea to convene CICA was one of the first international initiatives of the independent Kazakhstan. The forum has existed for almost 20 years: what is CICA today? Indeed, the institutionalization of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia began 20 years ago – in fact, from its First Summit in 2002. But this First Summit was preceded by a lot of painstaking work that started on October 5, 1992, when the First President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, then a still rising politician of a newly founded post-Soviet nation, proclaimed this idea, standing behind the rostrum of the UN General Assembly for the first time. Almost 30 years have passed since that day. I remember how at that time Nursultan Nazarbayev shared his thoughts on CICA with the world's leading politicians and how enthusiastic they were about it.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkish President Turgut Özal's Impact on Nursultan
    TURKISH PRESIDENT TURGUT ÖZAL’S IMPACT ON NURSULTAN NAZARBAYEV’S PERCEPTION OF TURKEY* Nursultan Nazarbayev'ın Türkiye Algısına Tugut Özal'ın Etkisi Din Muhammed AMETBEK** Abstract Nursultan Nazarbayev as the founding President of Kazakhstan played a determinant role in the formation of Kazakh foreign policy. In this respect, the article examines Nazarbayev’s perception of Turkey as a decision maker in foreign policy are based on observation rather than realities. Nazarbayev is aware of the fact that the national identity of Kazakhstan is divided between two competing poles; Russian and Kazakh, in a broader sense; Slavic and Turkic. From this perspective, Nazarbayev’s perception of Turkey is significant as it is not only related to foreign policy but at the same time the national identity of Kazakhstan. The study argues that the President of Republic of Turkey of early 1990s Turgut Özal with his active diplomacy towards Kazakhstan contributed to the positive image of Turkey. The research concludes that close and reliable relations between Nazarbayev and Özal became the basis of a strategic part- nership between Kazakhstan and Turkey. Keywords: Turgut Özal, Nursultan Nazarbayev, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Perception, National Identity Özet Kazakistan’ın kurucu Cumhurbaşkanı Nursultan Nazarbayev’in, Kazak dış politi- kasının oluşumunda belirleyici rol üstlendiği kesindir. Bu bağlamda, makale, Nazarba- yev’in Türkiye algısını ele almaktadır. Çünkü inşacı ekolün iddiasına dış politika kararları gerçeklere değil algı üzerine alınmaktadır. Nazarbayev Kazakistan’ın ulusal kimliğinin Rus ve Kazak olarak, daha geniş kapsamda Slav ve Türk olarak yarışan iki kutba ayrıldığının farkındadır. Buradan hareketle, Nazarbayev’in Türkiye algısı, yal- nızca dış politika açısından değil aynı zamanda Kazakistan’ın ulusal kimliği açısından da önemlidir.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Asia: Confronting Independence
    THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY OF RICE UNIVERSITY UNLOCKING THE ASSETS: ENERGY AND THE FUTURE OF CENTRAL ASIA AND THE CAUCASUS CENTRAL ASIA: CONFRONTING INDEPENDENCE MARTHA BRILL OLCOTT SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ENERGY STUDY BY THE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY AND THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RICE UNIVERSITY – APRIL 1998 CENTRAL ASIA: CONFRONTING INDEPENDENCE Introduction After the euphoria of gaining independence settles down, the elites of each new sovereign country inevitably stumble upon the challenges of building a viable state. The inexperienced governments soon venture into unfamiliar territory when they have to formulate foreign policy or when they try to forge beneficial economic ties with foreign investors. What often proves especially difficult is the process of redefining the new country's relationship with its old colonial ruler or federation partners. In addition to these often-encountered hurdles, the newly independent states of Central Asia-- Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan-- have faced a host of particular challenges. Some of these emanate from the Soviet legacy, others--from the ethnic and social fabric of each individual polity. Yet another group stems from the peculiarities of intra- regional dynamics. Finally, the fledgling states have been struggling to step out of their traditional isolation and build relations with states outside of their neighborhood. This paper seeks to offer an overview of all the challenges that the Central Asian countries have confronted in the process of consolidating their sovereignty. The Soviet Legacy and the Ensuing Internal Challenges What best distinguishes the birth of the Central Asian states from that of any other sovereign country is the incredible weakness of pro-independence movements throughout the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Could Uzbekistan Lead Central Asia?
    Could Uzbekistan Lead Central Asia? In surprise move, previously isolated state calls for tighter regional integration. Uzbek president Shavkat Mirziyoyev. (Photo: Uzbek president’s press service) Uzbek president Shavkat Mirziyoyev has called for closer cooperation between all five countries of Central Asia in a move which some believe signals a new and more vigorous regional role for Tashkent. At an international conference on the Central Asia’s future, held in the historic Uzbek city of Samarkand in early November, Mirziyoyev emphasised that he supported efforts to create “a stable, economically developed and thriving region”. “I am sure that all will win from this – both the Central Asian states and other countries,” Mirziyoyev told the event, held under the auspices of the UN and attended by senior officials, diplomats and experts from the region, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and further afield. The event itself and Mirziyoyev’s address were both unusual. Initial attempts at regional unity following the fall of the Soviet Union were short-lived. For more than a decade the five states have not seriously discussed cooperating on domestic development and remain embroiled in disputes over water resources, borders and market protectionism amid general mistrust between the leadership. In fact, it was Uzbekistan, under the rule of former president Islam Karimov, which was the most sceptical about regional cooperation. As the successor to Karimov, who died in September 2016, Mirziyoyev has taken a number of measures that appear to show willingness to open up one of the world’s most isolated states. (See Could Uzbekistan be Opening Up?).
    [Show full text]
  • Opportunities and Limits of Cooperation Between Uzbekistan and Russia
    Opportunities and Limits of Cooperation Between Uzbekistan and Russia “Cooperation between Uzbekistan and Russia is characterized by a steady rise and certain breakthroughs, and this is the main difference between the current stage of Uzbek-Russian relations. At the same time, relations are still concentrated at the bilateral level, and the refusal to join Russian-centric structures is the continuity of Uzbekistan’s foreign policy strategy”, Ildar Yakubov, an Uzbek expert, said in an article written specifically for the analytical platform CABAR.asia. in the field of international relations. Presidents of Russia and Uzbekistan Vladimir Putin and Shavkat Mirziyoyev at the 2018 Interregional Cooperation Forum in Tashkent. Photo: Mikhail Metzel The first presidential term of the head of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev demonstrated the consistent expansion of the country’s foreign policy and foreign economic relations. The openness of the new Uzbekistan is called the main distinguishing feature of the country’s foreign policy over the past five years. Russia traditionally takes the leading place for Uzbekistan. Both states are united by historically established political, economic and cultural ties. In this regard, it is of interest to study the changes in Uzbek-Russian relations that have been observed under the presidency of Shavkat Mirziyoyev. Opportunities and Limits of Cooperation Between Uzbekistan and Russia The legacy of the “old” Uzbekistan Uzbekistan’s first president left a controversial legacy in relations with Russia. Some observers note the uneasy interaction between the countries, which has become a “calling card” of foreign policy under Islam Karimov. He was probably the most uncomfortable partner of Russia in Central Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Outcomes of Cooperation of Kazakhstan and Turkey in the Field of Education
    International Journal of Economics and Business Administration Volume V, Issue 4, 2017 pp. 96-103 The Outcomes of Cooperation of Kazakhstan and Turkey in the Field of Education M. Tlebaldiyeva1, T. Sadikov2, G. Kamiyeva3, Z. Moldahmetova4 Abstract: Official relations between Turkey and Kazakhstan were established in December 1990. The Minister of Culture Namik Kemal Zeybek and the Kazakh State Culture Committee signed an agreement for the carrying out of common cultural work between two countries in education system, research projects, exchange experience of experts and scholars in the practice. This agreement regained cultural ties interrupted long time ago. The official visit of the head of the Kazakh State Culture Committee paid to Turkey on the January 31, 1991, and the cooperation agreement signed by the Minister of Health on February 14 of that year strengthened cultural relations between the two countries. Before gaining the independence of Kazakhstan the official visit of the Turkish President Turgut Ozal to Kazakhstan on March 15 and signing the agreement "on the relationship of Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and the Republic of Turkey" led to the strengthening friendship Kazakh-Turkish relations and further development in this direction. Keywords: International cooperation, education, agreement, cultural, relationship. 1Master of History, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, [email protected] 2Doctor of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of History L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Astana, Kazakhstan. 3Candidate of Pedagogical Science Kazakh Humanities and Law Institute of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Astana, Kazakhstan 4Candidate of Pedagogical Science Kazakh Humanities and Law Institute of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Astana, Kazakhstan M.
    [Show full text]
  • Uzbekistan: a New Model for Reform in the Muslim World?
    Feature Article May 12, 2018 Uzbekistan: A New Model for Reform in the Muslim World? S. Frederick Starr and Svante E. Cornell ramatic and imp- ortant changes are Dtaking place in Central Asia. For more than a year the region’s historic core and geopolitical focal point has been immersed in a whirlwind of reform without precedent in the region. At a time when one-man rule has been reinforced in China and Russia, when the rule of law is in abeyance in countries as diverse as South Africa and President Shavkat Mirziyoyev Venezuela, and when most organized around solid commitment to the rule Muslim majority societies appear to be receding of law, the rights of citizens, elective into a new authoritarianism informed by governance, an open market economy, religious religious ideology, Uzbekistan has instituted tolerance, cordial relations with the great reforms that are ambitious in aim and extensive powers without sacrificing sovereignty, and a in scope. new embrace of the Central Asian region itself It is far too early to say how it will all come out, as an actor on the world state. It’s time for the or even how far it will go. But there is little world to take stock of this startling doubt that that the current reforms are all development. © 2018 Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program, Joint Center American Foreign Policy Council / Institute for Security & Development Policy 509 C St NE, Washington, DC 20002 / V. Finnbodavägen 2, 13130 Stockholm-Nacka, Sweden www.silkroadstudies.org 2 Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst To the extent it has been acknowledged at all by unconvertible and then only semi-convertible the world’s press and punditry, the reform for a quarter century, which drastically curtailed movement in Uzbekistan has been presented as both international and national economic a personal project of Uzbekistan’s new activity.
    [Show full text]
  • The President of Uzbekistan Speaks with the First President Of
    toshvil.uz The President of Uzbekistan speaks with the First President of Kazakhstan over the phone On May 23 a telephone conversation took place between the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev and the First President of the Republic of Kazakhstan – Elbasy Nursultan Nazarbayev. The head of our state expressed sincere gratitude to the First President of Kazakhstan for full-fledged support and personal contribution to the development and consolidation of the Uzbek-Kazakhstan bonds of friendship, good neighborliness and multidimensional cooperation. It was stressed that owing to joint efforts, the traditionally close relations between our two countries have reached a qualitatively new level over the past few years, they are filled with solid practical substance. The prolific first state visit by the President of Kazakhstan Kasym-Zhomart Tokayev to Uzbekistan this April, which once again demonstrated the continuity of Elbasy’s foreign policy course, was recollected with high delight. Shavkat Mirziyoyev and Nursultan Nazarbayev discussed during the telephone conversation the pressing issues in bilateral relations, as well as those in the international and regional agenda. They paid priority attention to the implementation of agreements in the trade and economic sphere, to building up the cooperation at the level of leading enterprises and businesses in industry, energy, transport and other sectors. The dynamic growth and the diversification of the structure of mutual trade were positively evaluated. In 2018, the turnover exceeded 3 billion US dollars, while the aim for the next period is $ 5 billion at minimum. Shavkat Mirziyoyev and Nursultan Nazarbayev noted the importance of continuing intensive interregional (among the regions of the two nations) contacts designed for the effective use of broad economic opportunities and great potential in the cultural and humanitarian sphere, including in the framework of the Year of Kazakhstan in Uzbekistan.
    [Show full text]
  • Leadership Transition in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan Implications for Policy and Stability in Central Asia
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Calhoun, Institutional Archive of the Naval Postgraduate School Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2007-09 Leadership transition in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan implications for policy and stability in Central Asia Smith, Shane A. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/3204 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS LEADERSHIP TRANSITION IN KAZAKHSTAN AND UZBEKISTAN: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND STABILITY IN CENTRAL ASIA by Shane A. Smith September 2007 Thesis Advisor: Thomas H. Johnson Second Reader: James A. Russell Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED September 2007 Master’s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Leadership Transition in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan: 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Implications for Policy and Stability in Central Asia 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Uzbekistan: Recent Developments and U.S
    Order Code RS21238 Updated May 2, 2005 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Uzbekistan: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests Jim Nichol Specialist in Russian and Eurasian Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Summary Uzbekistan is an emerging Central Asian regional power by virtue of its relatively large population, energy and other resources, and location in the heart of the region. It has made limited progress in economic and political reforms, and many observers criticize its human rights record. This report discusses U.S. policy and assistance. Basic facts and biographical information are provided. This report may be updated. Related products include CRS Issue Brief IB93108, Central Asia, updated regularly. U.S. Policy1 According to the Administration, Uzbekistan is a “key strategic partner” in the Global War on Terrorism and “one of the most influential countries in Central Asia.” However, Uzbekistan’s poor record on human rights, democracy, and religious freedom complicates its relations with the United States. U.S. assistance to Uzbekistan seeks to enhance the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and security of Uzbekistan; diminish the appeal of extremism by strengthening civil society and urging respect for human rights; bolster the development of natural resources such as oil; and address humanitarian needs (State Department, Congressional Presentation for Foreign Operations for FY2006). Because of its location and power potential, some U.S. policymakers argue that Uzbekistan should receive the most U.S. attention in the region. 1 Sources for this report include the Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), Central Eurasia: Daily Report; Eurasia Insight; RFE/RL Central Asia Report; the State Department’s Washington File; and Reuters, Associated Press (AP), and other newswires.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 7 May 2018
    United Nations A/72/796 General Assembly Distr.: General 7 May 2018 Original: English Seventy-second session Agenda item 21 Globalization and interdependence Letter dated 13 March 2018 from the Permanent Representative of Tajikistan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General I have the honour to transmit the joint statement of the President of the Republic of Tajikistan, Emomali Rahmon, and the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, on strengthening friendship and neighbourliness (see annex). I should be grateful if you would circulate the present letter and its annex as a document of the General Assembly, under agenda item 21. (Signed) Mahmadamin Mahmadaminov 18-04352 (E) 150518 150518 *1804352* A/72/796 Annex to the letter dated 13 March 2018 from the Permanent Representative of Tajikistan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General [Original: Russian] Joint statement by the President of the Republic of Tajikistan, Emomali Rahmon, and the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, on strengthening friendship and good-neighbourliness At the invitation of the President of the Republic of Tajikistan, Emomali Rahmon, the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, conducted a State visit to the Republic of Tajikistan on 9 and 10 March 2018. During fruitful talks held in an open, friendly and constructive atmosphere, the Heads of State discussed in detail key issues relating to the current state of relations between the Republic of Tajikistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan, the prospect of further broadening and deepening bilateral multidimensional cooperation in the political, commercial and economic, transport and communication, cultural and humanitarian and other spheres, as well as current regional and international issues of mutual interest.
    [Show full text]