Republic of Uzbekistan: the choice of strategy for medium-sized states in the era of global uncertainty

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Republic of Uzbekistan: the choice of strategy for medium-sized states in the era of global uncertainty

Tangatarova N.

Abstract

In this article, the author considers the features of the foreign policy strategy of Uzbekistan and the factors that predetermined them. The author considers Uzbekistan's choice of "balancing equidistance" strategy as a result of political reflection of the country's leadership in response to the challenges of global uncertainty in the situation of crisis of international institutions inherited from the "bipolar world". The author of the ar ticle describes Uzbekistan as a medium-sized state, deprived of access to the seas («landlocked») and unable to use the strategy of bandwagoning. At the same time, the strategy of «passive and isolationist neutrality» used by some of Uzbekistan's neighbors is appreciated by the author of the article as unacceptable for the consistently self-asserting Uzbek state in the international arena.

Keywords: foreign policy, bipolar world, balancing equidistance, medium-sized state, bandwagoning

Аннотация

Республика Узбекистан: выбор стратегии для средних государств в эпоху глобальной неопределенности Тангатарова Н.

В данной статье автор исследует особенности внешнеполитической стратегии Узбекистана и предопределившие их факторы. Автор рассматривает выбор Узбекистаном стратегии «балансирующей равноудаленно- сти» как результат политической рефлексии руководства страны в ответ на вызовы глобальной неопределенности в ситуации кризиса международных институтов, унаследованных от «двухполярного мира». В статье Узбекистан описывается как среднего размера государство, лишенное доступа к морям и не имеющее возможности использовать стратегию bandwagoning. В то же время стратегия «пассивного и изоляционистского нейтралитета», используемая некоторыми из соседей Узбекистана, оценивается автором статьи как неприемлемая для последовательно самоутверждающегося на международной арене узбекистанского государства.

Ключевые слова: внешняя политика, двухполярный мир, балансирующая равноудаленность, государство среднего размера, bandwagoning

Central Asia is a classic example of a world region that contains not only well-known problems, but also has enormous resources and development opportunities, as well as a significant impact on global trends and processes of global political, economic and social development. At the same time, the consideration of the Central-Asian region as a differentiated geopolitical entity, the various countries of which are capable of implementing its own domestic and foreign policy strategies, is not yet obvious to a significant part of researchers. The well-established clichйs and the framework of repeatedly tested approaches to a certain extent limit the process of developing a fundamentally new vision of the processes of internal development of the Central African Republic and its member states.

At the same time, there is a gradual transition from traditional geopolitical concepts that focus on the competition of powers in the struggle for influence in the region, on the study of possible ways and models of development of the region as a whole, as well as of individual countries included in it. A number of researchers consider either different versions of socio-economic modernization and political transit, or analyze the regime dimension of various types of political order that have developed in Central Asian states.

Examples of such scientific writings are a number of scientific works published over the past two decades. Among them are books published with the participation of renowned specialist in the region B. Rumer, including «Central Asia: challenges of independence» (1998) [4], «Central Asia at the end of the transit period» [3] and «Central Asia in transit: dilemmas of political and economic development» [13]. B. Rum- er and other authors presented in these studies conclude that the Central Asian economy in the 1990s was markedly influenced by two parallel processes: the establishment of market relations and the attempt at democratic transit with the introduction of institutions and formal democracy procedures. The main content of this process, they recognize the diversification of the adopted strategies and conditions for economic development in the CAR countries, as well as increased economic competition between the states of the region, which entailed serious political consequences

Decentered globalism as a possible future

For this part of the chapter I chose to lean on Barry Buzan's doctrine of decentered globalism. He is giving the difference between superpowers and world («great») powers, stating that a superpower is a state whose resources in the political, military, cultural and economic spheres allow it to spread its influence over the entire world system, and in contrast to them, world («great») powers can cover only one world region with their influence. However following the neorealist paradigm, Buzan argues the attempts of existing world powers to achieve dominance in the global system are doomed to failure. Instead, in his opinion, a regionalized world based on cooperation and coexistence between powers should be established. Even in 2004, Buzan himself admitted that in the near future a transition to a multipolar world, which will be formed by the efforts of world powers, is inevitable.

According to the researcher, the very concept of a superpower already belongs to the past. Buzan believes that the very idea that a state can take a dominant position in the international arena is the product of an unbalanced state of international relations in the late XIX - early XX centuries, which was caused by industrial development and bourgeois revolutions that prompted one or another Powers fight for hegemony.

Given the existing imbalances and challenges, according to Buzan, today it is necessary to modernize the system of international relations. As a constructive alternative, he offers a new model of world order with the defining role of great powers, uniting certain geo-economic and geopolitical regions around them - a model of decentralized globalism.

The new decentralized (i.e., deprived of a single center of power) world will be based on the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, non-interference in internal affairs, diplomacy, respect for international law, self-determination (not in all forms), popular sovereignty, equality of individuals and whole nations. This matches the condition of Uzbekistan's foreign policy, the main priority of which is the region of Central Asia, where Uzbekistan is striving to be a leader. Uzbekistan's goal for central Asian course of its foreign policy is to make Central Asia a sovereign and independent union in the international relations with the world.

Neutrality in small and middle states

Neutrality is a political strategy that is usually used by many small states, as this strategy allows small states to not being involved in wars either directly or indirectly. According to Heywood neutrality «is a legal condition through which a state declares non-involvement in a conflict or war, and indicates its intention to refrain from supporting or aiding either side» [9]. Neutrality is obtaining more and more relevance now as several small states are using neutrality and it provides them security at some extend. Uzbekistan is one of these states. However, among realists' basic assumptions are the centrality of the state, the importance of power, the political inducement of national interests and the need for state survival. And according to these assumptions realists suppose that in case of conflicts small states should balance between great powers or should choose the strategy of bandwagon. Nevertheless, neutrality sometimes offers a third option different than above two [2]. For some small states, permanent neutrality is adopted as a means of achieving some level of security from outside threats.

There are numerous definitions of small states (Amstrup 1976; Archer and Nugent 2002; Hey 2003; Maass 2009; Steinmetz and Wivel 2010; Archer and Bailes et al. 2014) [6]. There are a lot of criteria playing role in defining what a small state is, for example, geographic size, population size, economic outcomes and military spending.

As Goetschel writes, «neutrality used to be an eminent component of discussions on European security: for centuries it was the alternative to membership in military alliances and a safety belt in the case of collective security failures» [6]. This statement means neutrality creates conditions for small states in which they are not involved in military conflicts and are in security. Despite the fact that the policy of neutrality limits foreign policy options for states, small states indeed obtain the chance to protect their sovereignty by means of neutrality.

In case of Uzbekistan, after gaining the independence as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, it had to build its future course in that way that it could survive in such an unstable environment, when the situation in neighboring countries were critical. In that condition the most relevant strategy was to balance and keep neutrality. Besides, that Neutrality provides a politico-legal framework for states to follow that involves a level of international co-operation, recognition and acceptance by the wider international community. And this was also of a great importance for Uzbekistan, a new country that had to find its place in the international arena. So, from the beginning the foreign policy of Uzbekistan was based on the strategy of balancing and neutrality. And in 2012 the first ever concept paper in the sphere of foreign policy was adopted on 1 August, 2012 - and delivered two major points: the military neutrality and Central Asia as a priority region of Uzbekistan's foreign policy [17].

One of the forms of neutrality is «non-alignment» which is the most important strategy in Uzbekistan's foreign policy. So for small states, neutrality is motivated by national security concerns, and now it's becoming more and more relevant with the rise of new economies like China, India, Brazil and etc. the world is becoming multi-polar. And this fact provides small states like Uzbekistan with the opportunity to balance between great powers and adopt neutrality.

Landlocked-ness and its influence on small and middle states destiny

Wealth and stability of the region have direct influence on the foreign policy and security of landlocked states. Landlocked states residing in poor and unstable neighborhoods, consequently, experience instability and have more limited foreign policy options compared to those landlocked states which are located in the rich and stable regions of the world. That was the case of Uzbekistan when after the collapse of the Soviet Union numerous small weak states were formed and the world order was going through a crisis which made this region extremely vulnerable and unstable. Uzbekistan is one of only two doubly landlocked states in the world. And this fact definitely had an effect on its foreign policy. In 1991 the country came to be surrounded by relatively weak and unstable states like Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyz Republic, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. In their turn they are all landlocked states themselves. None of these neighbors were rich or a major power.

Consequently, instability in the region and extra-regional power struggles shaped the country's foreign policy in many ways. First of all because Uzbekistan is doubly landlocked it had transit problems as it had to pass at least two other countries to reach the sea. Uzbekistan inherited good transportation infrastructures from the Soviet Union; however, conflicts in Afghanistan and Tajikistan have posed the threat to Uzbekistan's security and caused restrictions on her transportation routes [10, p. 259-260].

This is the matter of the country's economy as it depends on the export. So, definitely, the leader's foreign policy decision are influenced by the fact that the country is landlocked and is dependent on neighboring countries which means it has to build the foreign policy in that way that these problems are solved [10, p. 260].

Here is president Islam Karimov's speech from 1998: «World experience testifies, and Uzbekistan is another proof, that a country having no direct access to international waters significantly suffers in international economics. This is why we continue to seek new solutions to the problem of providing our exports with an effective transportation system and obtaining access to international waters».

Similarly, Uzbekistan ministry of Foreign Affairs declares that: «The geographic isolation of Central Asia causes serious problems for our countries. In this respect, Uzbekistan will continue its efforts towards “disenclavization” of Central Asia by creating alternative transport and communication corridors» (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 2008).

These statements show that the problem related to Uzbekistan's geographic location damages Uzbekistan's economy and has a significant influence on its foreign policy. It makes the country dependent on other great powers and consequently state sovereignty suffers. This is the case of Uzbekistan as because of the conflicts in Tajikistan and decades of war in Afghanistan Uzbekistan was blocked from Pakistani and Indian ports [10, p. 261]. Such cases give other states leverage to influence Uzbekistan's security and foreign policy limiting the country's foreign policy options. This is the reason why Uzbekistan tried a number of times to weaken Russian influence on the country and balance great powers improving relations with the United States and find partners in the West. The proof of cooperation between Uzbekistan and the United States is Karshi-Khanabad air base given to the States after the 9/11 attacks to use in military purposes in the war with Afghanistan Uzbekistan gave the facility to the United. The friendship went on to become Strategic Partnership in 2002 [5].

However, later the United States' encouraging Uzbekistan to bring the western values like human rights, freedom of expression and holding free elections in governance made Uzbekistan perceive it as a way to interfere in its internal affairs.

Thus, Uzbekistan is not influenced only by the intra-regional power struggle. However, the country is affected by extra-regional major powers' rivalries over influence in the region and instability in the neighborhood. Therefore, instability and poverty of the region directly affect Uzbekistan's foreign policy.

At the same time, the difference in the conditions in which the countries of Central Asia are located also determines the difference in the strategies for further transformations that they have adopted.

Recent research on power shift, or the change in relative power of states in an international structure, has focused on how states adapt to strategic difficulties. As a key change in international politics, scholars have long discussed how states react strategically to power shift. One school in international studies, neorealism, emphasizes the prime importance of security affairs over other strategic concerns in an anarchic international structure. It explores states' dilemma in choosing between balancing a more powerful state or bandwago- ning with it. This issue is quite relevant as after the collapse of the Soviet Union numerous small states were formed. In this situation, in the process of global turbulence, when institutions, norms and unions are collapsing - and new independent states have to rely more on their own resources to protect sovereignty - and they need to come up with and implement their own foreign policy strategies, based on their own characteristics and available opportunities. The countries of Central Asia are no exception. If we are going to analyze strategy of small states it's important to define what small states are. Small states are defined in different ways, for instance, Hey (2003) notes that small states are those with small populations, land area, production levels, wealth, and military capabilities [6]. Absolute power is measured by factors such as population size (15 million or less), geographical area and GDP/GNP per capita. However, by convention, the term small state is used to describe a state with a population of one million or less [16].

Key variables such as state size, self-image and the factor of influence are taken into account when comparing and contrasting the power of states in the international system [14]. strategy political reflection manual

According to Molis, «the most important criteria determining the power position of a state is its comparative power and geopolitical position» [12]. In small states' literature, the former concept deals with attributes such as political, economic, and social power, and the latter concept evaluates the definite geopolitical context of a state. States with limited capacity to protect their interests and establish geopolitical subjectivity are also considered small [12]. Small states are particularly vulnerable due to lack of power and independence.

As such, small states are more vulnerable to foreign intervention because outside powers could take advantage of domestic strife to advance their economic and ideological interests [14]. In other words, small states are weak because they cannot defend themselves by their own efforts against any of the great powers [7]. Since they are unlikely to obtain security using their own resources, Roshstein states that small states «must rely fundamentally on the aid of other states, institutions, processes, or developments to do so; the small power's belief in its inability to rely on its own means must also be recognized by the other states involved in international politics» [15].

If to estimate Uzbekistan according to these categories we can say that Uzbekistan is not a small state. Uzbekistan is Central Asia's most populous state (33,254,100) [1], the largest market, and fields the largest army. According to the “hierarchical model”, in order to determine the place of a country in the relative world hierarchy, it is necessary to be based on the combined national power of the state. As criteria for classification, a set of quantitative, mostly resource-oriented indicators, such as GDP, population, size of state territory, and military capabilities of the country are proposed. In 1978, M. White defined this category of countries as «states with such military power, resources and a strategic position that in peacetime forces the great powers to seek their support, and in wartime, along with the fact that the middle power does not have the chances of winning a war against a great power, it can inflict serious damage to the latter, incomparable with that which the great power hoped to receive by attacking it» [18]. Thus, when applying the hierarchical model, we obtain a characteristic of the middle power as a state, which is neither large nor small. And Uzbekistan fully complies with this characteristic. It follows from this that a lot of strategies that are used by small states in order to cooperate with great powers are not suitable for Uzbekistan. If we observe the strategy ofbandwagoning, it's a strategy small states employ in order to avoid both external and internal threats to their security. In other words, the concept of bandwagoning also states that aligning with a powerful coalition will help the aligned country to appease and attain some measure of security.

This strategy helped small states to ally with aggressive countries rather than to fall into the hands of great powers in the wake of the Cold War tension. The reason they adopted this strategy underlines the natural fear they had of unfamiliar powerful states. Levy says, «Great powers balance against potential hegemons, whereas weaker states in the proximity of stronger states do what is necessary to survive, which often involves bandwagoning with the strong instead of balancing against them» [10]. Thus, small states usually have to choose the strategy of bandwagoning. This strategy is not suitable for Uzbekistan - since it is not small, but a middle power with a comparatively significant by the standards of the Central Asian Republic and a dynamically growing population.

The strategy of «isolationist and passive neutrality» that was chosen as a path by Turkmenistan does not suit Uzbekistan either because of its geographical location, since the challenges along the borders ofUzbekistan are quite significant, and development based solely on raw materials potential is excluded due to a much larger population than Turkmenistan's. If talking about the strategy of Kazakhstan that is «multi-vector integration», it doesn't meet Uzbekistan's condition Uzbekistan from the beginning had different political conditions than Kazakhstan with quite different challenges and threats like regionalism and many others that needed to be solved and had a great influence on the foreign policy of Uzbekistan. Besides that without completing socio-economic modernization in the city and in the village, excessive openness of the country in economic terms can provoke economic problems, growing social tension and political crises. This fact makes this strategy not applicable to Uzbekistan.

Inability to use the «pure» experience of neighbors in foreign policy prompted the leadership of Uzbekistan after 1992 to seek its own original version of the foreign policy strategy based on an integrated approach and analysis. The pan-Turkic (Turkey), pro-European, pro-American and Eurasian vectors did not live up to expectations, because they did not adequately contribute to solving the country's security and socio-economic modernization problems, and integration within the Central African Republic failed due to the lack of the necessary coordination of interests and behavior strategies of the countries of the region . In this situation, the final decision was the choice of a strategy of «balancing equidistance» (a reasonable distance from world centers of power with an emphasis on non-alignment and the development of bilateral relations with other countries in order to balance external influences on the country, strengthen its sovereignty and consistently implement its own foreign policy strategies and plans to solve the problems of internal development).

Литература / References

1. Численность населения Узбекистана превысила 33, 25 млн. человек // Ритм Евразии. - 21.01.2019.

2. Austin, D. A. Realism, Institutions, and Neutrality: Constraining Conflict Through the Force of Norms //Commonwealth: A Journal of Political Science. - 1998. - № 9. - Pp. 37-56.

3. Central Asia. At the End of Transition. Ed. by B. Rumer, M. E. Sharpe. - NewYork, London: Armonk, 2005. - XIII+449 pp.

4. Central Asia: Challenges of Independence. Rumer В. (ed.). - NewYork, 1998 .

5. Gleason, G. The Uzbek Expulsion U.S. Forces and in Central Asia // Problems of Post-Communism. - 2006. - № 53(2). - Pp. 49-60.

6. Goetschel, L. Neutrality, a Really Dead Concept? //Cooperation and Conflict. - 1999. - № 34(2). - Pp. 115-39.

7. Handel, M. Weak states in the international system. - London: Frank Cass, 1981.

8. Hey, J. A. K. Small states in world politics: Explaining foreign policy behavior. - London: Lynne Rienner, 2003.

9. Heywood, A. Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations.- London and New York: Palgrave, 2015.

10. Idan, A., Shaffer, B. The Foreign Policies of Post-Soviet

11. Landlocked States // Post-Soviet Affairs. - 2011. - № 27(3). - Pp. 259-260.

12. Levy J. S. The causes of war: A review of theories and evidence //Behavior, society and nuclear war. P. E. Tetlock (Ed.). -New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. - Pp. 209-333.

13. Molis, A. The role and interests of small states in developing European security and defense policy //Baltic Security &De- fence Review. -2006. - № 8. - Pp. 81-100.

14. Rumer B. Central Asia in Transition: Dilemmas of Political and Economic Development. - New York, 2014.

15. Rapaport, J., Muteba, E., Therattil, J. J. Small states & territories: Status and problems. UNITAR.- New York: Arno Press, 1971.

16. Rothstein, R. L. Alliances and small powers. - New York: Columbia University Press, 1968.

17. Thapliyal, S. Mutual security - The case of India and Nepal. - New Delhi: Lancer, 1998.

18. Uzbekistan's Development Strategy for 2017-2021 has been adopted following public consultation // The Tashkent Times. - February 8. - 2017.

19. Wight M. Power Politics. - London, 1978.

Размещено на Allbest.ru