DOCSLIB.ORG

Osce Conflict Management in Central Asia Fighting Windmills Like Don Quixote

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Osce Conflict Management in Central Asia Fighting Windmills Like Don Quixote security and human rights 27 (2016) 479-497 brill.com/shrs osce Conflict Management in Central Asia Fighting Windmills like Don Quixote Pál Dunay Professor of nato and European Security Issues, George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany Abstract Conflicts and their management in Central Asia have never been prioritised by the osce although five states of the region are among its participating states. This has been due to that unlike in some other parts of the post-Soviet space most of the con- flicts did not threaten with military escalation, and the intensity of strategic rivalry is less noticeable in this distant part of the osce area than closer to the heart of E urope. The fact Russia is not a direct party to the conflicts in Central Asia also reduces the interests of many participating states. There was one high intensity conflict in the re- gion, the Tajik civil war that came too early for the osce. Lower intensity conflicts, ranging from border skirmishes, disputes about access to water, violation of rights of national minority groups, rigged elections are monitored and their resolutions are fa- cilitated by the organisation. Some of them, like the 2010 Kyrgyz-Uzbek conflict had such short shelf-life internationally that no consensus-based inter-governmental organisation could have effectively intervened into it. The osce has been successful in conflict management when the party or parties also wanted to break the stale-mate that the Organization could facilitate. Domestic change in some Central Asian states is essential for advancing the osces cooperative security approach. Keywords Central Asia – high intensity conflict – low intensity conflict – civil war – Conflict Prevention Centre – High Commissioner on National Minorities – Kazakhstan – Kyrgyzstan – Tajikistan – Uzbekistan * The views expressed in this article are the authors’. © nhc, 2017 | doi 10.1163/18750230-02703002 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 03:19:35PM via free access <UN> 480 Dunay Introduction This article looks at the limited role of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (osce) in conflict prevention and conflict manage- ment in Central Asia. To achieve this, the article will provide (1) an introduc- tory overview of the key security issues within and across the 5 Central Asian States; (2) an analysis of the potential role that osce institutions could play in the region and within individual countries given the nature of the conflict drivers within and among the 5 so called -stan; (3) an analysis of the limited role the osce played in 4 high and low intensity conflicts, highlighting the key challenges the Organization faced with reference to local political agendas and its own institutional limitations; and (4) identifying key characteristics defin- ing the relationship between the osce and Central Asian participating States, drawing on lessons learned from the osce conflict management experience in the region. osce engagement in conflict settlement is rather dependent on the will of the concerned parties. Hence the Organization limited mediating engage- ment in some, but not all, conflict contexts. In fact the osce had to stay out of the conflict in Georgia and Abkhazia and South Ossetia since 2008 due to the Russian veto to continue the field presence in Georgia. The same is true for Crimea, where the Russian Federation has taken a clear stance by declaring: “for Crimea, we believe the issue has been closed for good. This is a historical decision of the people living on the peninsula and Russia will never discuss the issue with anyone”.1 Under such conditions, it is understandable that the osce as a consensus-based organisation has little to do but stay out of certain con- flicts. In Central Asia it is the character of the conflicts that may prevent the osce from getting involved. Either, they are enduring low intensity conflicts where it is difficult to determine when and under what conditions one should get involved, or the conflict flares up for such a short period of time leaving no time for the osce to become engaged. Beyond the sovereignty based reluctance of some national leaders, it is a matter of the level of persuasion the osce can exercise as a mediating institu- tion. In fact, the means available to the osce, socialisation but practically no conditionality, does not allow it to present a strong alternative compared to some powerful actors, including States and other international agencies. 1 Joint Press Conference with President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of Greece Alexis Tsipras, 27 May 2016. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/52024 Last accessed on 22 May 2017. security and humanDownloaded rights from 27 Brill.com09/27/2021 (2016) 479-497 03:19:35PM via free access <UN> OSCE Conflict Management in Central Asia 481 1 Central Asia Today and an Overview of the Security Issues Central Asia is traditionally identified with 5 former republics of the Soviet Union: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. However, some individuals add Afghanistan to the region so that it does not fall between the Greater Middle East and South Asia. Understandably, this is done in order to associate Central Asia with a neighbour that is internationally better known than any of the 5 States mentioned above and also to provide understanding that the region is adjacent to a major source of insecurity. This could help attract attention and readiness to support and assist the 5 Central Asian States. There is also a “flight from Central Asia”, people leave if they can while it sometimes is identified with backwardness and underdevelopment. The daughter of Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbaev clearly stated: “Geo- graphically, Kazakhstan borders on Central Asia, but it is not a Central Asian country. Ours is a Eurasian State strongly influenced by [European] and West- ern values. Contrary to what certain politicians and journalists assert, we are not another -stan. Saudi Arabia is not our historical landmark: we look to Nor- way, South Korea, and Singapore”.2 The President of the second richest Central Asian State (in terms of per capita gdp) Turkmenistan, Gurbanguly Berdimu- hamedov presented his country as having a dual Caspian and Central Asian identity.3 Internationally, Central Asia has a dual identity: as a region of 5 post-Soviet States each being a participating State of the osce, they have some alleged European identity, while they geographically lay behind the Ural mountains and belong to the Asian Group of States in the United Nations. The world tends to forget about the region given that the two main reasons why Central Asia mattered after the collapse of the Soviet Union or later have largely lost their importance. The 2 reasons were as follows: (1) the richness of natural resources and energy bearers; and (2) since 2001, being in close vicinity to Afghanistan. Central Asia, unlike other parts of the former Soviet Union, such as the Caucasus and Ukraine, is not infamous for its conflicts. However, this does 2 Dariga Nazarbayeva, Spetsifika i Perspektivy Politicheskovo Razvitiya Kazakhstana [Pecu- liarity and Prospects of Kazakhstan’s Political Development], 3 December 2003, (emphasis added) http://www.imp.kz/Lists/articles/DispForm.aspx?ID=766 Last accessed on 27 November 2010. 3 Speech by President of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov at the 64th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, New York, 23 September 2009. www.turkmenistan.ru/ en/node/8396.html (Last accessed on 22 December 2016.) security and human rights 27 (2016) 479-497 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 03:19:35PM via free access <UN> 482 Dunay not mean that the environment is free of them it only means they are less visible and attract less attention than others in the former Soviet Union. This may be attributed to various factors. It would be simplistic to attribute it to distance. Central Asia is land-locked and quite distant from the West, which continues to have major influence on strategic prioritisation among regions. Short of holding the attention of the leading powers of the world, and the lack of a potential rivalry, conflicts have remained relegated to the backburner in Central Asia. The world can easily live with Central Asian instability and security risks. Central Asia is an interesting laboratory where various layers of security problems coexist. Although I am of the view that most security problems in the region have internal root causes, it is clear that inter-state, transnational and human security problems coexist. There are inter-state rivalries, includ- ing territorial disputes; security problems associated with terrorism; and hu- man security problems, in particular due to the deprivation of individuals’ basic human rights and oppression.4 The problems are exacerbated by the volatility of inter-state relations and the eventual rivalry for leadership that corrodes mutual trust. Hence, whenever there is a security problem there are spill-over effects that stem from the distrust underlying the inter-state relations. However, the great game that characterised the region in the 19th century, in light of the circumstances mentioned above, appears to have come to an end. The West has concluded that Central Asia is simply a “bridge too far” and it is not worth to engage in a geopolitical rivalry with countries much better positioned in the region. In sum, the “great game” of the 19th century may well become “a negative great game” or rather “a little game” in the 21st century where the question is reformulated and asked: which country, if any, is ready to become involved in Central Asian affairs? The conclusion can preliminarily be drawn that Central Asia is left to China and Russia. This means that the Cen- tral Asian countries will be exposed to the strongest external influence by two states that will live happily with their current regimes and will not interfere in order to change it in Central Asia.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wheat Production and Regional Food Security in CIS: the Case of Belarus, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan
    FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia Policy Studies on Rural Transition No. 2016-1 Wheat production and regional food security in CIS: The case of Belarus, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan Zvi Lerman, David Sedik Yuliy Yusupov, Ivan Stanchin and Irina Kazakevich April 2016 The Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia of the Food and Agriculture Organization distributes this policy study to disseminate findings of work in progress and to encourage the exchange of ideas within FAO and all others interested in development issues. This paper carries the name of the authors and should be used and cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations and conclusions are the authors’ own and should not be attributed to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, its management, or any member countries. Zvi Lerman is Sir Henry d’Avigdor Goldsmid Professor of Agricultural Economics, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. David Sedik is the Senior Agricultural Policy Officer in the FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia. Yulii Yusupov is the Director of the Center for Economic Development in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Ivan Stanchin is Professor of Financial Economics and Accounting at the Voronezh Economic-Legal Institute in Voronezh, Russia. Irina Kazakevich is a Senior Economist at the Institute of System Research of the Agro- industrial Complex, National Academy of Science of Belarus, Minsk, Belarus. 2 Contents Figures .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CENTRAL EURASIAN STUDIES REVIEW (CESR) Is a Publication of the Central Eurasian Studies Society (CESS)
    The CENTRAL EURASIAN STUDIES REVIEW (CESR) is a publication of the Central Eurasian Studies Society (CESS). CESR is a scholarly review of research, resources, events, publications and developments in scholarship and teaching on Central Eurasia. The Review appears two times annually (Winter and Summer) beginning with Volume 4 (2005) and is distributed free of charge to dues paying members of CESS. It is available by subscription at a rate of $50 per year to institutions within North America and $65 outside North America. The Review is also available to all interested readers via the web. Guidelines for Contributors are available via the web at http://www.cesr-cess.org/CESR_contribution.html. As of issue 6-1, CESS will move to an all on-line format. For more information, see the above-mentioned website. CENTRAL EURASIAN STUDIES REVIEW Editorial Board Chief Editor: Marianne Kamp (Laramie, WY, USA) Section Editors: Perspectives: Robert M. Cutler (Ottawa/Montreal, Canada) Research Reports: Jamilya Ukudeeva (Aptos, CA, USA) Reviews: Shoshana Keller (Clinton, NY, USA) Conferences and Lecture Series: Payam Foroughi (Salt Lake City, UT, USA) Editors-at-Large: Ali İğmen (Long Beach, CA, USA), Morgan Liu (Columbus, OH, USA), Sébastien Peyrouse (Washington, DC, USA) Production Editor: Sada Aksartova (Tokyo, Japan) Web Editor: Paola Raffetta (Buenos Aires, Argentina) Editorial and Production Consultant: John Schoeberlein (Cambridge, MA, USA) Manuscripts and other editorial correspondence (letters to the editors, formal responses to CESR articles, etc.) and inquiries about advertising in CESR should be addressed to: Dr. Virginia Martin, [email protected]. Please consult our new website at http://www.cesr-cess.org for other information, including new contact addresses and guidelines for contributors.
    [Show full text]
  • Uzbekistan's Closure of the Airbase at Karshi-Khanabad
    Order Code RS22295 October 7, 2005 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Uzbekistan’s Closure of the Airbase at Karshi-Khanabad: Context and Implications Jim Nichol Specialist in Russian and Eurasian Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Summary In late July 2005, Uzbekistan terminated an agreement permitting U.S. forces to use the Karshi-Khanabad (K2) airbase in the southern part of the country to support coalition military operations in Afghanistan. U.S. forces are moving to other airstrips, including those in Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan. Major concerns include whether cooler security ties with Uzbekistan will set back the U.S.-led Global War on Terrorism and other U.S. interests in Central Asia. This report may be updated. Related products include CRS Report RS22161, Unrest in Uzbekistan, by Jim Nichol. Introduction: The U.S. Basing Agreement with Uzbekistan After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the United States negotiated status of forces agreements (SOFA) and other security accords with several Central Asian states in order to use their airstrips for what became the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan. The negotiations with Uzbekistan reportedly were drawn out by a number of requests by the Uzbeks, including for U.S. security and assistance pledges and for a primary focus on humanitarian and search-and-rescue missions rather than air attack or air refueling (although the Uzbeks allowed some special operations missions). The U.S.-Uzbek SOFA was signed on October 7, and the air campaign against Afghanistan began an hour later.1 The U.S.-Uzbek SOFA provided for use of Uzbek airspace and for up to 1,500 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting the Geo-Political Thinking of Sir Halford John Mackinder: United States—Uzbekistan Relations 1991—2005
    Revisiting the Geo-Political Thinking Of Sir Halford John Mackinder: United States—Uzbekistan Relations 1991—2005 A thesis Presented to the Faculty of The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy by Chris Seiple In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 27 November 2006 Dissertation Committee Andrew C. Hess, Chair William Martel Sung-Yoon Lee Chris Seiple—Curriculum Vitae Education 1999 to Present: The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University: PhD Candidate 1994 to 1995: Naval Postgraduate School: M.A. in National Security Affairs 1986 to 1990: Stanford University: B.A. in International Relations Professional Experience 2003 to Present President, the Institute for Global Engagement (IGE) 2001 to 2003 Executive Vice President, IGE 1996 to 1999 National Security Analyst, Strategic Initiatives Group, Headquarters, United States Marine Corps 1997 National Security Affairs Specialist, National Defense Panel 1996 Liaison Officer, Chemical-Biological Incidence Response Force 1990 to 1994 Infantry Officer, United States Marine Corps Publications • Numerous website articles on Christian living, religious freedom, religion & security, engaging Islam, just war, and Uzbekistan (please see the website: www.globalengagement.org) • “America’s Greatest Story.” The Review of Faith & International Affairs. 4, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 53-56. • “Uzbekistan and the Bush Doctrine.” The Review of Faith & International Affairs. 3, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 19-24. • “Realist Religious Freedom: An Uzbek Perspective.” Fides et Libertas (Fall 2005). • “Understanding Uzbekistan,” an Enote publication distributed by the Foreign Policy Research Institute (1 June 2005). • “Uzbekistan: Civil Society in the Heartland.” Orbis (Spring, 2005): 245-259. • “Religion & Realpolitik,” St. Paul Pioneer Press, 12 November 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • Coversheet for Thesis in Sussex Research Online
    A University of Sussex DPhil thesis Available online via Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Please visit Sussex Research Online for more information and further details CHINA’S FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS CENTRAL ASIA Expanding the Concepts of National Interest and National Security Zille Huma PhD Thesis University of Sussex May 2014 Summary The present study provides an analysis of China’s foreign policy towards Central Asia to trace ‘culture of China’s foreign policy’. The culture of China’s foreign policy approach deals with China as an identity and process rather than being static or within boundaries. The present research highlights China’s multilateral and cooperative policies in Central Asia and with Russia as an outcome of evolutionary process of construction of China’s identity. The complex process of building relations with Central Asian region although within a short period of time (in post-Soviet context) are analysed to make a case for China’s innovative (partially) political processes of dealing with frontier security and embracing multilateralism. This is explained by studying the evolution of China’s identity and interests and the role of significant events that affect its perceptions of self and that are a prescription for its policy orientations as observed in case of foreign policy towards Central Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • The China and Eurasia Forum Quartery Vol 5 No 2
    THE CHINA AND EURASIA FORUM QUARTERLY Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Volume 5, No. 2 May 2007 The China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly is a Central Asia-Caucasus & Silk Road Studies Program publication. The Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program is a joint transatlantic independent and externally funded research and policy center. The Joint Center has offices in Washington and Uppsala, and is affiliated with the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University and the Department of Eurasian Studies of Uppsala University. It is the first Institution of its kind in Europe and North America, and is today firmly established as a leading center for research and policy worldwide, serving a large and diverse community of analysts, scholars, policy-watchers, business leaders and journalists. The Joint Center aims to be at the forefront of research on issues of conflict, security and development in the region; and to function as a focal point for academic, policy, and public discussion of the region through its applied research, its publications, teaching, research cooperation, public lectures and seminars. The China and Eurasia Forum is an independent forum which seeks to bring together regional experts, academics, government policy makers, and business leaders with an interest in the growing relationship between China and Eurasia. Focusing primarily on Sino-Central Asian, Sino-Russian, and Sino-Caucasian relations, the aim of China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly is to foster discussion and information sharing between a geographically distant community that recognizes the significance of China's emergence in this important part of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Locating Russia in the Emerging Geopolitics of Central Asia: Mapping India’S Options
    LOCATING RUSSIA IN THE EMERGING GEOPOLITICS OF CENTRAL ASIA: MAPPING INDIA’S OPTIONS Thesis submitted to the Central University of Punjab For the award of Doctor of Philosophy In South and Central Asian Studies BY Mudasir Mubarik Supervisor Dr. Bawa Singh Centre for South and Central Asian Studies School of Global Relations Central University of Punjab, Bathinda August, 2019 i CERTIFICATE I declare that the thesis entitled, “Locating Russia in the Emerging Geopolitics of Central Asia: Mapping India’s Options” has been prepared by me under the guidance of Dr. Bawa Singh, Assistant Professor, Central for South and Central Asian Studies, School of Global Relations, Central University of Punjab. No part of this thesis has formed the basis for the award of any degree or fellowship previously. Name and signature of candidate Centre for South and Central Asia, School of Global Relations, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda ‐ 151001. Date: ii CERTIFICATE I certify that Mudasir Mubarik has prepared his thesis entitled, “Locating Russia in the Emerging Geopolitics of Central Asia: Mapping India’s Options”, for the award of Ph.D. degree of the Central University of Punjab, under my guidance. He has carried out this work at the Centre for South and Central Asian Studies, School of Global Relations, Central University of Punjab. Dr. Bawa Singh Centre for South and Central Asian Studies School of Global Relations Central University of Punjab, Bathinda‐151001. Date: iii ABSTRACT Locating Russia in the Emerging Geopolitics of Central Asia: Mapping India’s Options Name of student: Mudasir Mubarik Registration number: CUP/MPhil-Ph.D/SGR/SCA/2011-12/05 Degree for which submitted: Doctor of Philosophy Name of Supervisor: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Report from the Osce/Odihr Trial Monitoring in Uzbekistan – September/October 2005
    Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights REPORT FROM THE OSCE/ODIHR TRIAL MONITORING IN UZBEKISTAN – SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2005 Warsaw 21 April 2006 I. Executive Summary 3 II. The Andijan Events 5 III. Monitoring of the Andijan Trial by the OSCE/ODIHR 6 Background: ODIHR Human Rights Monitoring Programme ..................................6 Trial monitoring as reflected in OSCE commitments................................................7 ODIHR access to monitor the Andijan trial process..................................................8 Lack of access in the pre-trial stage.......................................................................8 Invitation from Uzbekistan and commencement of ODIHR monitoring ..............8 Access to the courtroom.........................................................................................9 Access to trial protagonists and materials............................................................11 IV. OSCE/ODIHR Findings on the Andijan Trial 12 The Indictment.........................................................................................................12 Contents of the indictment...................................................................................13 Publicly-available information on the defendants ...............................................17 The Trial ..............................................................................................................20 Arrangements in the courtroom ...........................................................................20
    [Show full text]
  • How Authoritarian Rulers Seek to Legitimise Repression: Framing Mass Killings in Egypt and Uzbekistan
    Inclusion of a paper in the Working Papers series does not constitute publication and should limit in any other venue. Copyright remains with the authors. Inclusion of a paper in the Working Papers serve to disseminate the research results of work in progress prior publicaton encourage exchange ideas and academic debate. Working GIGA GIGA Research Programme: Accountability and Participation ___________________________ How Authoritarian Rulers Seek to Legitimise Repression: Framing Mass Killings in Egypt and Uzbekistan Mirjam Edel and Maria Josua No 299 March 2017 www.giga-hamburg.de/workingpapers GIGA Working Papers 299/2017 Edited by the GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies Leibniz‐Institut für Globale und Regionale Studien The GIGA Working Papers series serves to disseminate the research results of work in progress prior to publication in order to encourage the exchange of ideas and academic debate. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presenta‐ tions are less than fully polished. Inclusion of a paper in the GIGA Working Papers series does not constitute publication and should not limit publication in any other venue. Copy‐ right remains with the authors. GIGA Research Programme “Accountability and Participation” Copyright for this issue: © Mirjam Edel and Maria Josua WP Coordination and English‐language Copyediting: Melissa Nelson Editorial Assistance and Production: Silvia Bücke All GIGA Working Papers are available online and free of charge on the website <www.giga‐hamburg.de/workingpapers>. For any requests please contact: <workingpapers@giga‐hamburg.de> The GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies cannot be held responsible for errors or any consequences arising from the use of information contained in this Working Paper; the views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author or authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Uzbekistan Land Reform Assessment Final Report
    UZBEKISTAN UZBEKISTAN LAND REFORM ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT MAY4, 2005 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by ARD, Inc. Cover photo courtesy of ARD, Inc. UZBEKISTAN LAND REFORM ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................................................................ ii Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... iii 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.0 Background .............................................................................................................................................. 7 3.0 Findings and Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 EXISTING LEGAL FOUNDATION: LAND TENURE AND LAND RIGHTS ...........................................................10 3.2 KEY LAWS AND PROCEDURES IMPACTING LAND TENURE AND LAND RIGHTS ...........................................20 3.3 LAND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................................................26
    [Show full text]
  • Consultant Reports
    Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report Project Number: 37743 October 2008 Regional: Ninth Agriculture and Natural Resources Research at International Agricultural Research Centers Financed by the ADB’s Technical Assistance Funding Program Prepared by International Water Management Institute Battaramulla, Sri Lanka For Asian Development Bank Agriculture Environment and Natural Resources Division, Central Asia Department This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. (For project preparatory technical assistance: All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design. FINAL REPORT Project Implementation Team IARC Center Project Staff IWMI Dr. Andrew Noble, Project Leader Dr. Asad Sarwar Qureshi Project Manager (April 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008) Dr. Iskandar Abdullaev Project Manager (August 1, 2005 to March 31, 2007) Dr. Akmal Karimov, Project Technical Coordinator Dr. Mehmood Ul-Hassan ( Socio-economist) Mr. Alexander Platonov, GIS specialist Mrs. Ikbal Yusupova, Project Assistant/Translator ICARDA Dr. Manzoor Qadir (Marginal Water Management Specialist) Dr. Theib Oweis (Irrigation Management Scientist) Dr. M. Suleimenov (Agronomist) Dr. Aden Aw-Hassan (Socio-economist) Mr. Tulkin Yuldashev (Irrigation Scientist) Mr. Ikrom Khudoibergenov (Soil Scientist) Mr. Alisher Mirzabaev (Socio-economist) ICBA Dr. Shoaib Ismail( Plant specialist) Dr. Kristina Toderich (Plant Specialist) National Teams National teams Project Staff Uzbekistan Dr. German Bezborodov, National Coordinator Dr. Toshbekov Uktam- soil scientist Dr. Kuliev Tajidin- agronomist Dr. Dusmatov Alisher-biologist Dr. Shurova Lyudmila- Irrigation specialist Dr. Koshekov Rashid -Irrigation specialist Dr. Mirhoshimov Rakhmankul- Irrigation Specialist Dr. Kushiev Habibjon– biologist Dr. Sadulla Avezbaev – Socio-economist Kazakhstan Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The May 2005 Andijan Uprising: What We Know
    The May 2005 Andijan Uprising: What We Know Jeffry W. Hartman SILK ROAD PAPER May 2016 The May 2005 Andijan Uprising: What We Know Jeffry W. Hartman The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and not the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. © Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program— A Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center Johns Hopkins University-SAIS, 1619 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036 Institute for Security and Development Policy, V. Finnbodavägen 2, Stockholm-Nacka 13130, Sweden www.silkroadstudies.org “The May 2005 Andijan Uprising: What We Know” is a Silk Road Paper published by the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Program, Joint Center. The Silk Road Papers Series is the Occasional Paper series of the Joint Center, and addresses topical and timely subjects. The Joint Center is a transatlantic independent and non-profit research and policy center. It has offices in Washington and Stockholm and is affiliated with the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University and the Stock- holm-based Institute for Security and Development Policy. It is the first institution of its kind in Europe and North America, and is firmly established as a leading research and policy center, serving a large and diverse community of analysts, scholars, policy-watchers, busi- ness leaders, and journalists. The Joint Center is at the forefront of research on issues of con- flict, security, and development in the region. Through its applied research, publications, research cooperation, public lectures, and seminars, it functions as a focal point for academic, policy, and public discussion regarding the region.
    [Show full text]