DOCSLIB.ORG

Relations Between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Relations Between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan Rustam Burnashev: Relations between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan “In the bilateral relations, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan rely on key Westphalian norms – non- interference in internal affairs, and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of frontiers”, said Rustam Burnashev, professor of the Kazakh-German University (Kazakhstan Almaty), in an article written exclusively for cabar.asia. Since the early 1990s, relations between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are arranged in two main formats: regional and bilateral. A wider format of relations in the framework of various international organizations, forming a number of significant background moments, remains minor. 1. Regional format of relations Consideration of the regionalization of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in the format of “Central Asia” remained dominant throughout the 1990s. Its institutionalization has gone through a number of structures: first, the Common Economic Space [1], then – the Central Asian Economic Community [2] and, finally, the Organization “Central Asian Cooperation”, which in 2002 was transformed into the Central Asian Economic Community [3]. However, at this time, it was clear that the regionalization within the project “Central Asia” faced serious difficulties and was primarily ideological in nature: 1. From an economic point of view, Central Asia could not be considered as a single entity, because it included the republics which were within the Soviet Union in two different economic regions: Kazakhstan (Kazakh SSR) and Central Asia (Kirghiz SSR, Tajik SSR, Turkmen SSR and Uzbek SSR). It must be borne in mind that the economic regions in the Soviet Union were economically integral parts of the country, selected on the basis of technical and economic feasibility of integration of production, as well as the specifics of the level of production, forms of social economy, territorial division of labor, administrative structure and the natural environment. This net of economic zones existing at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union was established in 1966. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the specification of the countries of Central Asia only grew, both because of the desire to provide for its economic independence, and according to the choice of different models of economic reform. 2. From the point of view of security in the countries included in Central Asia, securitization of a number of key issues was carried out differently. First of all, it refers to issues such as the civil war in Tajikistan in 1992-1997; the situation in Afghanistan in the second half of the 1990s and the attitude to “Northern Alliance” and the movement of “Taliban” operating in this country; the attitude of the states to a number of internal political, economic and societal issues. Thus, the involvement of Uzbekistan in resolving the crisis in Tajikistan and Afghanistan was significantly higher than in Kazakhstan. Thus, Central Asia, in terms of international security, has not developed as a regional security complex. Rustam Burnashev: Relations between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan In parallel with the regional projects, there existed equally strong constructs that go beyond the five republics – such as the “Shanghai Five” and the Collective Security Treaty. Equally important is the concept of an “extended” region, built on the idea of ​​”Eurasian reintegration” and the Eurasian Union proposed by Nazarbayev on March 29, 1994. The Eurasian Economic Community consisting of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan was established in 2000 on its basis. [4] Put together, these initiatives clearly demonstrate the dominant importance for Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan [5] of relations beyond “Central Asia”. Thus, the structural conditions for the regionalization of Central Asia were absent. Moreover, the countries demonstrated their unwillingness to design them. Taken together, the above had led to the fact that by the 2000s, the final format of regionalization has not happened in Central Asia. Communications of the five countries that are attributable to Central Asia with external actors, first of all, with Russia, remained too strong to be able to talk about the formation of an independent region. Moreover, On October 18, 2004, Russia joined the Organization “Central Asian Cooperation” [6]. In 2006, in connection with the accession of Uzbekistan to the Eurasian Economic Community [7], there was a merger of the two organizations [8], which de facto meant the elimination of the “Central Asian Cooperation”. In the second half of the 2000s, there was an attempt to revive the Central Asian project in a Central Asian Union idea expressed by the President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev. But this initiative could not be supported on a practical level. Moreover, for example, the President of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov, in response to this initiative, pointed to the impossibility of this initiative in the format of Union of Central Asia, since the potential of its members “must be somehow comparable”, “policy and directions, in which state leaders are involved, must be comparable, but not contradictory, especially when it comes to reform and vision for the development” [9] In 2009, Uzbekistan announced its withdrawal from the United Energy System of Central Asia – almost the last structure uniting Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in the “regional” format. The final departure from the concept of Central Asia can be linked with the launch of the mechanism of a single customs space within the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia in 2010 [10], clearly fixing the orientation of Kazakhstan as Rustam Burnashev: Relations between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan an economic region outside the economic space of Central Asia and in the future, as a full Kazakhstan’s withdrawal from this space. * * * Despite the fact that the idea of ​​the unity of Central Asia has not been implemented, it has been an effective political and ideological factor in the 1990s. This concept remains such a factor now, however, instead of positive functions (psychological compensation for the collapse of the Soviet Union and a regular dialogue platform), it begins to fulfill rather negative functions, rather constraining the transformation and development of appropriate political, economic and social space, including from the security standpoint. In understanding the relations between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, the project “Central Asia” has entrenched through a simulacrum “regional rivalry”, which refers to the struggle between the two countries for dominance in Central Asia. However, either the term “struggle” or the term “dominance”, as a rule, do not get any decryption, in other words, they are taken for granted. Understanding the relations between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan through the prism of competition is preserved in the present. [11] 2. Bilateral relations format Diplomatic relations between the Republic of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan were established November 23, 1992. The basic principles of bilateral relations were originally recorded in the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Republic of Uzbekistan dated June 24, 1992. Subsequently, they were reinforced by the Treaty of eternal friendship of October 31, 1998. However, in the 1990s – early 2000s, bilateral relations between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan were interpreted through the prism of the concept of “Central Asia”. So in the monograph “Sovereign Kazakhstan at the turn of Millennium” [12], published by Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies in 2001, it is stated that “the development of bilateral relations with Uzbekistan is one of the main directions of Kazakhstan’s foreign policy in the Central Asian region”. In addition to the regional component, a partnership of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan at this time was justified by reference to the historical and cultural closeness of the two peoples. Also it was indicated that one of the key aspects that determine the importance of the Kazakh-Uzbek relations was the need for cooperation in ensuring stability and security in Central Asia. In this case, the reference is made to a fixed list of tasks, the resolution of which was thought to be impossible only within national boundaries: the spread of religious extremism and terrorism, increase in the scale of drug trafficking. Rustam Burnashev: Relations between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan It is obvious that in addition to working in the field of “regional ideologeme”, the cooperation between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan affected the attempts to solve real problems. Those may include: 1. The issue of delimitation and demarcation of borders, actualized at the turn of the 1990s – 2000s (the first round of negotiations of the governmental delegations of the two countries to harmonize the line of the joint border was held in February 2000 in Tashkent) in connection with the crisis of the Central Asian regionalization caused by Kyrgyzstan’s accession to the WTO, as well as with the activation of illegal armed and terrorist groups. Despite the fact that the parties were guided by the recognition that the “border disputes” in the form of mutual territorial claims, capture or illegal possession of alien territory did not exist between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, the process of delimitation and demarcation was rather long and often painful. 2. The question of forming a system of sharing of transboundary water resources of the Aral Sea.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Kazakhstan by Bhavna Dave
    Kazakhstan by Bhavna Dave Capital: Astana Population: 15.9 million GNI/capita, PPP: US$10,320 Source: !e data above was provided by !e World Bank, World Development Indicators 2011. Nations in Transit Ratings and Averaged Scores 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Electoral Process 6.25 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 Civil Society 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.75 5.75 5.50 5.50 5.75 5.75 Independent Media 6.00 6.25 6.50 6.50 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.50 6.75 6.75 Governance* 5.75 6.25 6.25 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a National Democratic 6.75 Governance n/a n/a n/a 6.50 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 Local Democratic 6.25 Governance n/a n/a n/a 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 Judicial Framework 6.25 and Independence 6.00 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.00 6.25 Corruption 6.25 6.25 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 Democracy Score 5.96 6.17 6.25 6.29 6.39 6.39 6.39 6.32 6.43 6.43 * Starting with the 2005 edition, Freedom House introduced separate analysis and ratings for national democratic governance and local democratic governance to provide readers with more detailed and nuanced analysis of these two important subjects.
    [Show full text]
  • Kazakhstan and Eurasian Economic Integration: Quick Start, Mixed Results and Uncertain Future
    Kazakhstan and Eurasian Economic Integration: Quick Start, Mixed Results and Uncertain Future Nargis Kassenova November 2012 L'Ifri est, en France, le principal centre indépendant de recherche, d'information et de débat sur les grandes questions internationales. Créé en 1979 par Thierry de Montbrial, l'Ifri est une association reconnue d'utilité publique (loi de 1901). Il n'est soumis à aucune tutelle administrative, définit librement ses activités et publie régulièrement ses travaux. Avec son antenne de Bruxelles (Ifri-Bruxelles), l'Ifri s'impose comme un des rares think tanks français à se positionner au cœur même du débat européen. L'Ifri associe, au travers de ses études et de ses débats, dans une démarche interdisciplinaire, décideurs politiques et économiques, chercheurs et experts à l'échelle internationale. Les opinions exprimées dans ce texte n’engagent que la responsabilité de l’auteur. Centre Russie/NEI © Droits exclusivement réservés – Ifri – Paris, 2012 ISBN : 978-2-36567-101-9 IFRI IFRI-Bruxelles 27 RUE DE LA PROCESSION RUE MARIE-THERESE, 21 75740 PARIS CEDEX 15 – FRANCE 1000 BRUXELLES TEL. : 33 (0)1 40 61 60 00 TEL. : 32(2) 238 51 10 FAX : 33 (0)1 40 61 60 60 FAX : 32 (2) 238 51 15 E-MAIL : [email protected] E-MAIL : [email protected] SITE INTERNET : www.ifri.org N. Kassenova / Kazakhstan and CU Author Nargis Kassenova is Associate Professor at the Department of International Relations and Regional Studies of KIMEP University (Kazakhstan) and Director of the KIMEP Central Asian Studies Center (CASC). Since 2008 she has been a member of the Expert/Advisory Group of the EU Central Asia Monitoring (EUCAM) project launched to monitor the implementation of the EU Strategy for Central Asia adopted in 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • 135 Nursultan Nazarbayev's Role on Providing Regional and Global Security As an Influential Political Leader
    Türkiye Siyaset Bilimi Dergisi Turkish Journal of Political Science Yıl:2021 Cilt:4 Sayı:1 Sayfa/Page:135-156 Year:2021 Volume:4 Issue:1 Makale Gönderim Tarihi: 22/02/2021 Makale Kabul Tarihi: 27/02/2021 NURSULTAN NAZARBAYEV'S ROLE ON PROVIDING REGIONAL AND GLOBAL SECURITY AS AN INFLUENTIAL POLITICAL LEADER: A CASE STUDY OF HIS MEDIATION ROLE IN RUSSIAN-TURKISH CRISIS IN 2015 Yerkebulan SAPİYEV* Abstract Since gaining independence in 1991, there has been a colossal role of the first President of Kazakhstan- Nursultan Nazarbayev, on the foundation and development of Kazakhstan, on the process of setting up international organizations in the post- Soviet geography and on the formation of the multi-vector foreign policy of Kazakhstan. The article examines the role of the Nazarbayev’s successful international activities as an experienced negotiator and mediator in resolving international conflicts and crises. In this context, his peacekeeping mission on solving the Russian-Turkish crisis in 2015 has been examined by revealing his influence on providing regional and global security. In the first part of the article, the early life and political career of Nursultan Nazarbayev are examined by describing his character as a person, as an influential political leader and an outstanding statesman. The second part, in the post-Soviet period, Kazakhstan's foreign policy as an independent republic, and its contribution to providing regional and global security are explained. In this process, the meaningful role of the Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, President of the Republic of Kazakhstan is evaluated as well. In the third part, the Russian-Turkish crisis, its reasons, and Nursultan Nazarbayev's mediation role are evaluated.
    [Show full text]
  • The Formal Political System in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan
    Forschungsstelle Osteuropa Bremen Arbeitspapiere und Materialien No. 107 – March 2010 The Formal Political System in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. A Background Study By Andreas Heinrich Forschungsstelle Osteuropa an der Universität Bremen Klagenfurter Straße 3, 28359 Bremen, Germany phone +49 421 218-69601, fax +49 421 218-69607 http://www.forschungsstelle.uni-bremen.de Arbeitspapiere und Materialien – Forschungsstelle Osteuropa, Bremen No. 107: Andreas Heinrich The Formal Political System in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. A Background Study March 2010 ISSN: 1616-7384 About the author: Andreas Heinrich is a researcher at the Research Centre for East European Studies at the University of Bremen. This working paper has been produced within the research project ‘The Energy Sector and the Political Stability of Regimes in the Caspian Area: A Comparison of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan’, which is being conducted by the Research Centre for East European Studies at the University of Bremen from April 2009 until April 2011 with financial support from the Volkswagen Foundation. Language editing: Hilary Abuhove Style editing: Judith Janiszewski Layout: Matthias Neumann Cover based on a work of art by Nicholas Bodde Opinions expressed in publications of the Research Centre for East European Studies are solely those of the authors. This publication may not be reprinted or otherwise reproduced—entirely or in part—without prior consent of the Research Centre for East European Studies or without giving credit to author and source. © 2010 by Forschungsstelle Osteuropa, Bremen Forschungsstelle Osteuropa Publikationsreferat Klagenfurter Str. 3 28359 Bremen – Germany phone: +49 421 218-69601 fax: +49 421 218-69607 e-mail: [email protected] internet: http://www.forschungsstelle.uni-bremen.de Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................5 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Problems and Prospects of the Eurasian Economic Union
    Świat Idei i Polityki Seilbek Mussatayev, Assem Kaidarova, Maigul Mekebaeva Problems and prospects of the Eurasian Economic Union: SWOT analysis Abstract: In this article the authors examine the impact of integra- tion processes on the competitiveness of national economies of the participating countries of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEC). Any integration, including integration within the EAEC affects the economy of participants in two ways: on the one hand it favorably promotes mul- tilateral mutually beneficial business contacts, and on the other hand, it feels the strength, competing with each other, the individual national economies. The authors comprehensively investigated the current situ- ation and problems of the EAEC with the use of different methods of political analysis (comparative and system analysis, content analysis, event analysis, SWOT-analysis, and others.). In a sufficiently sharp polemical form, based on credible evidence materials, the article shows not only the integration of interaction, but also features of competition within the EAEC, the causes of conflict, as well as the consequences that resulted in the devaluation of ruble and dumping prices in Russia, which in turn all have a negative impact on competitiveness of the economies of Kazakhstan and Belarus. Key words: integration, union, regional economic integration, national economy, Customs Union. S. Mussatayev, A. Kaidarova, M. Mekebaeva: Problems and prospects 195 Introduction The Eurasian Economic Union (hereinafter the EEU) is an interna- tional organization
    [Show full text]
  • The Ukraine-Russia Conflict Might Prevent, Mitigate, Or Resolve Violent Conflicts in the Regions Neighboring Russia
    UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE www.usip.org SPECIAL REPORT 2301 Constitution Ave., NW • Washington, DC 20037 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063 ABOUT THE REPORT Lauren Van Metre, Viola G. Gienger, and Kathleen Kuehnast As the Ukraine crisis escalated, staff at the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) with experience in the region mobilized for a comprehensive conflict analysis with the aim of identifying plausible conflict scenarios and the forces and factors that propel them, ultimately pinpointing potential approaches that The Ukraine-Russia Conflict might prevent, mitigate, or resolve violent conflicts in the regions neighboring Russia. Using scenario analysis, facilitated by Alan Schwartz, Policy Futures, LLC, this report provides a Signals and Scenarios for the framework for understanding emerging conflict dynamics in post-Soviet countries and identifies conflict prevention and mitigation opportunities. Broader Region ABOUT THE AUTHORS Dr. Lauren Van Metre is a director in USIP’s Center for Applied Summary Research on Conflict, which conducts evidence-based research to • Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the military operations in eastern Ukraine have overturned improve practice in conflict-affected countries. She holds a PhD the post–Cold War norms that provided stability and development for the former Soviet—now in Russian Studies and has spent significant time working in St. Petersburg and conducting research throughout Russia’s regions. sovereign—countries bordering Russia. Viola Gienger is a senior writer for USIP, reporting and writing • Neighboring countries are recalculating their security and foreign policies through the lens of on issues related to the Institute’s work in the United States Ukraine, assessing their own security and conflict dynamics based on Russia’s newly aggres- and abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia and Asia: the Emerging Security Agenda
    Appendix 1. Select multilateral economic and security-related organizations and initiatives in Asia, April 1999 Shannon Kile Asia–Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) Members: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Japan, Korea (South), Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, USA, Viet Nam APEC was established in 1989 as an informal dialogue group to promote economic cooperation and to remove obstacles to trade between the countries of the Pacific Rim. APEC serves as the forum for an annual meeting of the foreign and economics ministers of the participating states, which is followed by a summit meeting of the heads of government. Under its auspices 10 inter- national Working Groups have been set up to address a broad range of economic, educational and environmental issues. Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Members: Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam ASEAN was established by 5 neighbouring countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singa- pore and Thailand) in 1967 as a consultative forum for promoting economic and political cooperation between them. ASEAN enlarged rapidly from 1995 and now incorporates all the states in South-East Asia. ASEAN’s distinctive consensus-based form of regionalism—some- times called ‘the ASEAN way’—has been a model for regional organizations elsewhere. Its principal achievements have been in promoting greater economic integration among the member states and in fostering joint approaches to political and security issues affecting the region. Its emerging role as a manager of regional affairs was weakened by the onset of the severe financial crisis in Asia in 1997.
    [Show full text]