Regionalism, Regional Structures and Security Management in Central Asia

The security dimension of regionalism and regional structures in Central Asia and Azerbaijan has been limited by Russia's influence as a regional hegemon, aswell as by various other constraints specific to the region and the local states. Moreover, as a peripheral zone in the world system, Central Eurasia has not shown much evidence of regionalization as a process. But in response to the proximity of hegemonic power the smaller states have tried to adopt bandwagoning and balancing strategies in regional formats. Although their fixation on 'regime security' has encouraged them to accommodate Russia through CIS structures, this is changing as new bilateral security relationships develop with the United States. The Russian-sponsored Collective Security Treaty Organization is unable to address the most serious challenges for regional security management in Central Asia. Yet the local states have been unable on their own to establish a regional security consensus and to institutionalize cooperation on that basis. The diffuse GUUAM grouping (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova) has not offered a basis for selfsustaining regional security cooperation. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization has created a venue to engage China in the security dialogue on Central Asia, particularly over counterterrorism, but has otherwise failed to tackle security challenges among and within the Central Asian states. Overall, the current focus of these states and their sponsors on bilateral relations to provide security assistance continues to displace security-related regionalism.     

The United States and Regionalism in Central Asia

This article examines the record of American policy towards regional cooperation in Central Asia. It begins with the determinants of regionalism and the role of external states therein. It then considers the nature of American interests in Central Asia. This is followed by a historical account of the three stages of American policy towards the region. The article argues that regional cooperation has not been a significant aspect of US policy. Instead US policy-makers have preferred bilateral relations or multilateral structures (e.g. the Partnership for Peace, the GUUAM [Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova] group) which draw the region's states beyond its boundaries. US policy tends to reduce incentives for regional actors to develop multilateral cooperation. It may also encourage competitive regionalist agendas on the part of other interested major powers (Russia and China).     

Regionalism in Central Asia: New Geopolitics, Old Regional Order

Behind the rhetoric of regional cooperation, the Central Asian states have been embroiled with increasing frequency in conflicts among themselves, including trade wars, border disputes and disagreements over the management and use of water and energy resources. Far from engendering a new regional order in Central Asia, the events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent basing of US troops in the region have served to entrench pre-existing patterns of regional cooperation, while highlighting the obstacles that have beset the regionalization process there since the mid-1990s. While all five Central Asian states have been attempting to use the renewed rivalry between Russia and the United States, which is being played out in the Central Asian region, to maximize their strategic and economic benefits, the formation of the United States–Uzbekistan strategic partnership has increased the resolve of the other Central Asian states (Turkmenistan excepted) to balance Uzbekistan's preponderance by enthusiastically pursuing regional projects involving Russia and, to a lesser extent, China. This regional dynamic has resulted in the steady gravitation of the centre of regionalism in Central Asia to the north from a nominal Tashkent–Astana axis to a more stable Astana–Moscow one, with possible repercussions for the poorer states of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. The article examines the major constraints on regionalism in Central Asia, considering in particular the ways in which the personalist, non-democratic regimes of Central Asia have obstructed state–centric 'top–down' regionalism as well as informal regionalist processes 'from below'.     

Democratization, Legitimacy and Political Change in Central Asia

This article examines the concepts of democracy and legitimacy in the context of post-Soviet Central Asia. Its first argument is that democratization projects have lived through hard times in five Central Asian countries despite the failure of the institutional expression of democracy to incorporate the values and structures of these societies. The Soviet legacy of cynicism combined with local conservative political culture obstructs the emergence of democratic values and processes crucial for successful institutional development. If democracy does not provide a basis for political legitimacy, should the conclusion be that the ruling regimes are illegitimate? The article’s second argument is that the current sources of legitimacy stem from the fact that the regimes managed to cope with the initial challenges of post-communist transition with relative success and laid the foundation of the new states. Moreover, the populations do not see viable alternatives to the present order. However, there are new problems, such as mounting social tensions, regionalization and criminalization of politics. These challenges are largely a by-product of developments in the post-independence era. The continuing legitimacy of the regimes will depend on their ability to cope with these new, highly problematic issues.     

The Paleolithic of Central Asia

The Lower Paleolithic of Central Asia is represented by several sealed and more or less firmly dated Lower–Middle Pleistocene cave and open-air sites in the southeastern part and by more numerous surface occurrences throughout the region. The assemblages assigned to the Lower Paleolithic form two rather distinct groups, one remarkable for well-made handaxes and the other characterized by cores and flakes with no handaxes. The distribution map of pebble industries and industries with handaxes shows that while the latter originate from the western regions of Central Asia, the former are concentrated in the eastern part of the area. The Middle Paleolithic assemblages of Central Asia do not form a single technocomplex. Their variability in time is difficult to assess, but variation in space is obvious. Very few Upper Paleolithic sites in this region are known. At the same time, their stone industries are very diverse and most of them differ sharply from each other and from sites in adjacent regions.     

Han China in Central Asia

A.F.P. Hulsewé. China in Central Asia, the Early Stage: 125 B.C.-A.D. 23. An annotated translation of Chapters 61 and 96 of the History of the Former Han Dynasty, with an Introduction by M.A.N. Loewe. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979, Pp. viii, 273, map. (70 guilders)     

新疆和中亚及有关的地理概念

本文认为,新疆古称西域,其实西域常指包括新疆及其以西的中亚广大地区。“中亚”亦有广义和狭义之分,是见仁见智的近代地理概念。此外,古今中外还有一些与新疆和中亚有关的地理概念,都有一定的历史文化背景,系统考察之,那就是一部亚洲腹地地缘政治文化史。近年美国人提出Greater Central Asia（大中亚）的概念,另有一番政治含义。     

冷战时期东南亚地区主义的特征

冷战时期 ,以东盟为依托的东南亚地区主义有其鲜明特征。首先 ,东南亚地区主义是一种囿于主权的地区主义 ,以主权平等为核心的国际法基本原则成为东盟成员国的行为规范 ,尊重主权、不干涉内政、和平解决争端等原则在地区合作中得到切实遵循和维护 ;其次 ,东南亚地区主义的基本内容是进行政治经济上的合作 ,尤其是安全上的合作 ,但这种合作并不以政治经济一体化为目标 ,它是一种开放式的地区主义 ;最后 ,东盟奉行灵活、非正式的决策方式 ,表现出东南亚地区主义低组织化、低制度化的特征     

Strategic Reassertion in Russia's Central Asia Policy

President Putin has presided over a proactive, hard-headed and relatively effective Russian policy in Central Asia and the Caspian region since at least the summer of 2002, which aims both to support Russia's revival as an economic and military power and to help tackle at source new security challenges from the volatile south. In line with rising domestic nationalist thinking and the growing influence of officials with a security service or military background, Moscow has been searching for a rationale to support a more assertive policy in the region. Meanwhile, Russian and American views on the scope and conduct of the war on terrorism have diverged in important respects. Russia lacks an overall regional strategy for Central Asia, but is seeking to mesh together geopolitical, security and energy policy goals. It is seeking to reinvigorate its military–security influence in Central Asia under the banner of counterterrorism and at the same time has achieved long-term agreements for energy transit and purchases that make Central Asian states increasingly dependent on Russia in energy policy. Overall, a dynamic of competition is displacing the potential for cooperation between Russia and western states, especially the United States, in Central Asia. The prospects for a fully-fledged strategic partnership in the region are fading but the reality of security threats from Afghanistan and within Central Asia might eventually reconcile Moscow to a lower profile but long-term western strategic presence in the region.     

Changing security threat perceptions in Central Asia

This article discusses the current process of securitisation in Central Asia and identifies its convoluted and faulty nature as a factor impeding collective security action in the region. It uses the Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) as an explanatory tool and posits that security discourse in — and about — the five former Soviet republics is dominated by geopolitical grand strategy on the one hand and by particularist concerns about lack of democracy or transnational threats on the other. Issues of conventional security involving two or more states, such as territorial disputes or resource management, are pushed aside and rarely securitised at the official level. The article outlines conceptual and institutional reasons for this bias, and argues that unless inter-state tensions are properly analysed, debated and addressed, the prospects for security and stability in the region will remain grim.     

Geography in the Republics of Central Asia

A review of the last 50 years of geographic research in the four Central Asian republics of Uzbekistan, Kirghizia, Tadzhikistan, and Turkmenia, where the dominant desert and mountain landscapes impose a specific character on geographic investigations. Physical geography has tended to focus on glaciation in mountains and on surface runoff in the desert as potential sources of water for irrigation. Economic geography has emphasized the utilization of desert pastures.     

The Transport-Geography Situation and Inter-Regional Links of Central Asia

The author analyzes Central Asia's inter-regional traffic by commodities and major economic regions as of 1960. He predicts that bulk freight will gradually diminish in importance and packaged goods will increase in significance as Central Asia's industry expands. He urges more intensive utilization of the Caspian-Volga waterway in addition to rail routes linking Central Asia with other regions and, in this connection, stresses the importance of the new rail ferry across the Caspian Sea. The paper brings up to date Robert Taaffe's Rail Transportation and the Economic Development of Soviet Central Asia, Univ. of Chicago, 1960.     

中亚的地缘政治--历史和现实

一个多世纪以来 ,中亚的地缘政治格局和作用不断发生变化 ,并在不同时期以不同的方式影响着中国。“9·11”事件之后 ,中亚的地缘政治形势变得更加复杂 ,大国的、区域的、国际的利益交织在一起 ,成为全球关注的热点。阿富汗反恐战争的结束为中亚国家提供了国际合作的新通道 ,尽管中亚在国际地缘政治格局中的作用将越来越重要 ,但它不会成为新的地缘政治“核心地区”。