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. AUTHOR(S) Shane A. Smith 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Naval Postgraduate School REPORT NUMBER Monterey, CA 93943-5000 9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING N/A AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. 12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words) After September 11, 2001, Central Asia leapt into the vernacular of international politics. This forgotten region, where the “Great Game” was played, received new emphasis in the Global War on Terrorism. Analysts found a region brimming with both promise and concern. This thesis focuses on the future succession of two regional presidents, Nursultan Nazarbayev (Kazakhstan) and Islam Karimov (Uzbekistan), who are the only post-Soviet leaders their countries have known. These are also the only two Central Asian states not to experience a leadership transition since independence. These impending successions are potentially watershed events for Central Asia. Succession outcomes in these states will not only have ramifications throughout the region given its interconnectedness, but also have foreign policy and economic implications for the global powers. This thesis studies the neopatrimonial nature of the regimes, the clan politics permeating the societies, and trajectories literature to examine the succession issue in these states. Conclusions reveal the conservative status quo tendencies presently embedded in these areas. This indicates that regime stability in the same vein as Turkmenistan at Saparmurat Niyazov’s death is a more likely outcome for the states in question than are events such as the Tajik Civil War or Kyrgyz Tulip Revolution. 14. SUBJECT TERMS Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Neopatrimonialism, clan politics, 15. NUMBER OF succession, transition, regime trajectories PAGES 157 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF THIS CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT REPORT PAGE ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UU NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited LEADERSHIP TRANSITION IN KAZAKHSTAN AND UZBEKISTAN: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND STABILITY IN CENTRAL ASIA Shane A. Smith Major, United States Air Force B.S., Engineering Technology and History, East Tennessee State University, 1992 M.A., History, East Tennessee State University, 1995 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN SECURITY STUDIES (STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION) from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL September 2007 Author: Shane A. Smith Approved by: Thomas H. Johnson Thesis Advisor James A. Russell Second Reader Douglas Porch Chairman, Department of National Security Affairs iii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iv ABSTRACT After September 11, 2001, Central Asia leapt into the vernacular of international politics. This forgotten region, where the “Great Game” was played, received new emphasis in the Global War on Terrorism. Analysts found a region brimming with both promise and concern. This thesis focuses on the future succession of two regional presidents, Nursultan Nazarbayev (Kazakhstan) and Islam Karimov (Uzbekistan), who are the only post-Soviet leaders their countries have known. These are also the only two Central Asian states not to experience a leadership transition since independence. These impending successions are potentially watershed events for Central Asia. Succession outcomes in these states will not only have ramifications throughout the region given its interconnectedness, but also have foreign policy and economic implications for the global powers. This thesis studies the neopatrimonial nature of the regimes, the clan politics permeating the societies, and trajectories literature to examine the succession issue in these states. Conclusions reveal the conservative status quo tendencies presently embedded in these areas. This indicates that regime stability in the same vein as Turkmenistan at Saparmurat Niyazov’s death is a more likely outcome for the states in question than are events such as the Tajik Civil War or Kyrgyz Tulip Revolution. v THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK vi TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 A. PURPOSE.........................................................................................................1 B. IMPORTANCE................................................................................................3 C. REVIEW OF VIEWS ON SUCCESSION ....................................................4 D. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................16 II. NATURE OF THE REGIMES.................................................................................19 A. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................19 B. NEOPATRIMONIALISM............................................................................19 C. CLAN POLITICS ..........................................................................................26 D. BACKGROUND, CLAN STRUCTURES, AND POTENTIAL SUCCESSION INTENTIONS......................................................................30 1. Uzbekistan ..........................................................................................30 a. Clan Politics in Uzbekistan.....................................................34 b. Succession ...............................................................................39 2. Kazakhstan .........................................................................................45 a. Clan Politics in Kazakhstan....................................................47 b. Succession ...............................................................................51 E. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................58 III. EXAMINATION OF POSSIBLE TRAJECTORIES.............................................61 A. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................61 B. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF NEOPATRIMONIAL TRAJECTORIES ..........................................................................................61 1. Institutional Military Factors ...........................................................63 2. Opposition & Transition Factors .....................................................64 a. Democratic Transitions...........................................................65 b. Revolutions..............................................................................67 C. UZBEKISTAN ...............................................................................................71 1. The Military........................................................................................71 2. Strength of Moderate Opposition Groups.......................................74 3. Strength of Revolutionary Groups...................................................80 D. KAZAKHSTAN .............................................................................................92 1. The Military........................................................................................92 2. Strength of Moderate Opposition Groups.......................................95 3. Strength of Revolutionary Groups.................................................101 a. Secessionism..........................................................................101 b. Militant Islamists...................................................................106 E. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................110 IV. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................113