scholarly journals Global actors in Central Asia: Great Game or Great Gain?

2020 ◽  
pp. 67-75
Author(s):  
Assima AUBAKIR
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
Great Gain ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
Close Proximity ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Great Game ◽  
The Eu

From the first days of their independence, the Central Asian states were constantly searching for the most optimal and beneficial ways to interact between each other and with other partners, both located in close proximity to their borders and relatively remote, but no less significant. The main goal and scientific novelty of this research is to analyze current approaches, taking into account the foreign policy doctrines of global actors (Russia, China, the USA and the EU) in relations with the countries of Central Asia. Particular attention is paid to the assessment and conclusions on the prospects for their development, including through the prism of the interests of the states of the region.

scholarly journals Public Diplomacy as an Instrument for Obtaining Foreign Policy Goals of the USA in Central Asia

2018 ◽  
pp. 32-39
Author(s):  
B. Bahriev
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Energy Resource ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Regional Environment ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
The Usa

The article deals with the features of public diplomacy resource’ application in US foreign policy in Central Asia. The author claims that American public diplomacy which has been actively working in the region since the collapse of the USSR appears to be an important instrument of achievement of not only regional, but also global objectives of the USA. Despite a certain de-emphasis on the Central Asian direction in the American foreign policy at the present stage, the rising Russian public diplomacy activity and increasing Chinese influence in the region forces Americans to look for public diplomacy response in order to secure their positions in this important, from geopolitical viewpoint and energy resource perspective, region. The aforementioned tendencies shape a competitive regional environment for implementation of public diplomacy.

scholarly journals EU Policy in Central Asia

Politeja ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4(73)) ◽  
pp. 29-52
Author(s):  
Kamen Velichkov
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Centripetal Forces ◽  
The Eu

Geography and a preference for regional approaches have an impact on EU foreign policy. From the EU perspective, the countries of Central Asia are classified as “neighbors of EU neighbors.” The EU’s policies assume the existence of strong centripetal forces in the Eurasian heartland, whereas in fact the regionalization is still in the initial stages there. Consequently, EU foreign policy in Central Asia pursues both structural and relational objectives. The specific goals and performance of EU member states add a two-tier dimension to this process. In parallel with other external actors such as Japan, the United States, South Korea, and India, the European Union conducts its dialogue and cooperation with the Central Asian states in a 5+1 format. Compared to the policies of China, Turkey, or Russia, the EU has much more limited influence. It primarily aims to support the independent development of the Central Asian countries, for which some degree of regionalization appears to be a prerequisite.

scholarly journals Russian-Central Asian Relations in the Works of Modern French Researchers

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 979-995
Author(s):  
Rafael A. Arslanov ◽  
Elizaveta D. Trifonova
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
Great Part ◽  
Russian Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
Ruling Elites ◽  
The One ◽  
Annales School ◽  
Great Game ◽  
Active Return

The article examines the views of modern French researchers on the relations between Russia and the post-Soviet republics of Central Asia. This allows us to identify various interpretations of Russian foreign policy, and to understand the main approaches of French scholars analyzing the goals and tasks of Russian geostrategy in the region. As the article demonstrates, French historiography, along with the objectivist view on the Central Asian vector in Russian foreign policy, also includes works of ideological nature. Special emphasis is put on French works that focus on Russian political authors who speak of Russias neo-imperialism. These studies explain the Russian policy in Central Asia through the ruling elites ambition to resurrect an empire in the post-Soviet space and to return superpower status to Russia. Of special interest is the position of authors who try to explain the Russian attitude to the Central Asian region as, on the one hand, an expression of nostalgic feelings harbored by a great part of the population about the nations former greatness, assuming that these feelings have an impact on the leaderships policies, and on the other hand, as the Russian leaderships attempt to use Russias active return to the international arena for the consolidation and self-identification of society. It is observed that some French authors speak of a New Great Game. This very popular concept considers the actions of Russia and other powers operating in the region (USA and China) as a continuation of the historical rivalry between the Russian and British empires in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Russian authors have always been interested in French historiography; this is due to the latters scientific prestige and objectivity, and in particular its application of methodologies that further develop the tradition of the Annales School. At the same time, the growing French scholarship on the issue of Russia and post-Soviet Central Asian republics has not yet been subject to close and complex consideration, which defines the novelty of the article.

scholarly journals Development of Сooperation Between Kyrgyzstan and the European Union at the Present Stage

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 288-296
Author(s):  
R. A. Valeeva
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
Regional Cooperation ◽  
Kyrgyz Republic ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Eu Policy ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
The Eu

After the collapse of the USSR, the West received favorable conditions for promoting its geopolitical interests. Accordingly, the European Union began to establish relations with the countries of Central Asia. The EU policy in Central Asia in the early 90s of the twentieth century is characterized by the fact that Brussels concentrated its efforts on the allocation of economic assistance, the promotion of democracy and market relations. The EU policy in the Central Asian republics was based on cooperation and partnership Agreements signed with the leadership of the countries of the region. These agreements were intended to formalize the political and economic relations of the countries of the region with the EU. The role of the Central Asian countries in EU foreign policy was more clearly defined after the adoption of the European Union Strategy for Central Asia in 2007. The European Union has taken a number of steps to strengthen its position in the region. Several formats of bilateral and regional cooperation have been created, and EU representative offices have been opened in the countries of the region.Over the past decade, the European Union has significantly intensified its foreign policy in Central Asia. It expanded diplomatic ties and successfully implemented mechanisms for developing cooperation with Central Asia. In particular, it has expanded its presence in the region, successfully launching several of its strategic programs in various areas of cooperation.In 2019, the European Union adopted a new Strategy for Central Asia. This is the first radical revision of the document adopted in 2007. This indicates a desire to update the base of interac tion and to build relations with the countries of the region in a new way. The European Union pays special attention to such areas of cooperation as energy issues, global security problems and joint struggle against the threats of terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism and radical extremism, transport and infrastructure. Particular attention is paid to the prospects and problems of the EU’s interaction with the Kyrgyz Republic, which cover various aspects: political, economic, social, trade, cultural. On 19 November 2017, the European Union and the Kyrgyz Republic began negotiations to update the existing bilateral agreement, which is intended to replace the partnership and cooperation Agreement. After the completion of the negotiations, a new agreement on expanded partnership and cooperation between Kyrgyzstan and the European Union was initialed on July 6, 2019. It includes new areas of cooperation and significantly improves the regulatory framework for trade and economic relations in accordance with WTO rules and regional economic agreements. The new agreement provides for cooperation between Kyrgyzstan and the EU in areas such as: policy and reform, enhanced cooperation in foreign policy and security issues, in the areas of justice, security and freedoms, as well as in trade.

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EU STRATEGIC PRIORITIES IN POST-SOVIET CENTRAL ASIA

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 007-017
Author(s):  
Agnieszka KONOPELKO
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
Global Strategy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
Mutual Relations ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Soviet Central Asia ◽  
Great Game ◽  
The Eu

The Central Asian region has never been a priority area of EU external policy, although the European Union Global Strategy underlines its support for multilateralism in global strategy. The European Union has been more actively engaged in the region since the launch of the New Great Game in Central Asia between China, Russia and the U.S. Following the “neighbors of neighbors” concept, the EU shapes its relations with post-Soviet Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) on the basis of multilateral strategies and bilateral partnership agreements. The first comprehensive EU strategic document focused on post-Soviet Central Asia, The EU and Central Asia: Strategy for a New Partnership, was concluded in 2007. Despite some allegations that the strategy should take into account the individual needs and specificities of each country, it should be emphasized that the strategy intensified mutual relations between Central Asia and the EU, as well as the EU’s institutional presence in the region, mainly in terms of political and diplomatic dialog. Due to a dynamic approach, the analysis undertaken in the research study allowed for the presentation of positive and negative tendencies, changes and reversals in the implementation of the particular components of the previous EU strategy towards Central Asian countries over time. It should be noted that most objectives outlined in its normative strategy towards Central Asia were achieved to a limited extent, especially in terms of democratization and civil society.

ВНЕШНЕПОЛИТИЧЕСКАЯ СИТУАЦИЯ В ЦЕНТРАЛЬНОЙ АЗИИ: В КОНТЕКСТЕ МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫХ ОТНОШЕНИЙ И НОВЫХ ТЕНДЕНЦИЙ В МИРОВОЙ ПОЛИТИКЕ

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Токтобек Рыскулов
Keyword(s):  
Central Asia ◽  
Transnational Corporation ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Energy Resources ◽  
Gas Oil ◽  
Political Events ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Near Future

Аннотация. В статье очерчено геополитическое и геостратегическое положение ЦА. Охарактеризована внешнеполитическая ситуация в ЦА в контексте новых тенденций в мировой политике. Показаны основные интересы и политические тренды РФ, США, КНР по отношения к государствам ЦА. Отмечено, что современная Центральная Азия, притягивает к себе все большее внимание внешних игроков. Объяснение кроется в том, что Центральная Азия обладает не только удобным геополитическим и выгодным геостратегическим положением, но и большим количеством природных ресурсов. Анализируя современные российско-китайские отношения приходим к мысли, что не все так безоблачно во взаимоотношениях двух государств, ведь еще никто не опроверг постулат о постоянных интересах государств и о непостоянстве друзей. В недалеком будущем конкуренция за энергоресурсы (газ, нефть) ЦА приведет к обострению отношений, к конфликту интересов России и Китая, практически это политическая аксиома. Готовы ли государства ЦА и России к такому сценарию политических событий? Ключевые слова: Центральна Азия, геополитика и геостратегия. Большая Игра, РФ, США, КНР. ЕАЭС, Большая Центральная Азия, ТНК, терроризм, экстремизм. Аннотация. Макалада геосаясий жана геостратегиялык абалдары чийилген. Борбордук Азиядагы тышкы саясий кырдаал дүйнөлүк саясаттагы жаңы тенденциялардын контекстинде мүнөздөлдү. БА мамлекеттеринин мамилелери боюнча РФ, АКШ, КЭР негизги кызыкчылыктары жана саясий тренддери көрсөтүлдү. Учурдагы Борбордук Азия тышкы оюнчулардын көбүрөөк көңүлүн өзүнө тартып жаткандыгы байкалган. Түшүндүрмө берүү, Борбордук Азия ыңгайлуу геосаясий жана пайдалуу геостратегиялык абалга гана ээ болбостон, көптөгөн жаратылыш ресурстарына ээ. Анализируя заманбап российско-кытай мамилелери приходим карата ойлорун, бул эмес баары эле безоблачно өз ара мамилелеринде эки мамлекеттин, анткени дагы эч ким опроверг постулат жөнүндө туруктуу кызыкчылыгында мамлекеттердин жөнүндө жана непостоянстве досторунун. Жакынкы келечекте ба энергия ресурстары үчүн атаандаштык (газ, мунай) Россия жана Кытайдын таламдарынын кагылышына, мамилелердин күчөшүнө алып келет, бул иш жүзүндө саясий аксиома. Борбордук Азия жана Орусия мамлекеттери мындай жагдайды саясий окуяларга даярбы? Түйүндүү сөздөр: Борбор Азия, геополитика жана геостратегия. Чоң оюн, РФ, АКШ, КЭР. ЕАЭС, Чоң Борбордук Азия, ТНК, терроризм, экстремизм. Annotation. The article outlines the geopolitical and geostrategic position of Central Asia. The article describes the foreign policy situation in Central Asia in the context of new trends in world politics. The main interests and political trends of the Russian Federation, the USA, China in relation to the Central Asian States are shown. It is noted that modern Central Asia attracts more and more attention of external players. The explanation lies in the fact that Central Asia has not only a convenient geopolitical and advantageous geostrategic position, but also a large number of natural resources. Analyzing the current Russian-Chinese relations, we come to the conclusion that not everything is so cloudless in the relations between the two States, because no one has yet refuted the postulate about the permanent interests of States and the impermanence of friends. In the near future, competition for energy resources (gas, oil) in Central Asia will lead to an aggravation of relations, to a conflict of interests between Russia and China, this is practically a political axiom. Are the Central Asian and Russian States ready for such a scenario of political events? Key words: Central Asia, geopolitics & geostrategy. Big Game, the RF, the USA, the CPR. EAEC, Big Central Asia, Transnational Corporation, terrorism, extremism

scholarly journals Think Tanks In The Formation Of The Central Asian Vector Of British Foreign Policy

2021 ◽  
Vol 03 (06) ◽  
pp. 127-131
Author(s):  
Shakhnoza Akramjanovna Azimbayeva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
British Foreign Policy ◽  
History Of

This article examines the role and place of British think tanks in the design and development of the country’s foreign policy towards the Central Asian region. This issue is studied in combination with an analysis of the history of the formation of British think tanks, the positions of these centers in relation to Central Asia in the early 90s of the twentieth century after the collapse of the USSR and the state of modern think tanks that study Central Asia and their influence on the decision-making process in Great Britain.

scholarly journals British diplomacy of money and trade

2019 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-158
Author(s):  
Ognjen Pribicevic
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Decision To Leave ◽  
The Past ◽  
Gulf Countries ◽  
British Foreign Policy ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Uk Foreign Policy ◽  
The Eu

Leaving the EU is one of the major political decisions made in the UK over the past half-century. Brexit brought about a virtual political earthquake not only in EU-UK relations but also in terms of UK future place and role on the international scene. Immediately after the decision of UK citizens to leave the EU at a referendum held on 23 June 2016, the question arose as to whether the UK will lose some of its international influence, whether Scotland will remain part of the Union, whether the UK will retain its privileged relations and special status with the USA, and what its future relations with the EU will be. The purpose of this article is to point to the basic priorities of the contemporary British foreign policy as well as to place and role of the UK on the contemporary international scene particularly in view of its decision to leave the EU. We shall first try to define the status of present-day Britain in international relations. Second, we shall address the traditional dilemma of the UK foreign policy - what should be given priority - relations with the USA, Europe or the Commonwealth? After that, we shall discuss in more detail the phases the UK foreign policy went through following the end of the cold war. In the third phase, we shall analyze the British contemporary foreign and economic policy towards Gulf countries and China. In the fourth part of the article, we shall discuss relations with the USA. It should be pointed out that the article does not seek to analyze all aspects of British foreign policy, even if we wanted to, due to a shortage of time. Of course, the topic of Brexit will be present in all chapters and especially in the last one and conclusion remarks. By its decision to leave the EU, the UK appears to have given priority to its relations with the USA, China, Gulf countries as well as Commonwealth countries instead of the EU which has been economically and politically dominant over the past few decades. This decision taken by UK citizens will no doubt have a great impact not only on their personal lives and standard of living but on the UK role in international relations. Despite its military, political, economic and cultural capacities, it is highly unlikely that the UK will manage to overcome the consequences of an exit from the single market, currently generating 18 trillion dollars on an annual basis as well as the loss of a privileged partner role with the USA within the Union. We are, therefore, more likely to believe that in the foreseeable future, the role of the UK on the international scene will continue to decline and be increasingly focused on its economic and financial interests. Project of the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Grant no. III 47010: Drustvene transformacije u procesu evropskih integracija - multidisciplinarni pristup]

scholarly journals Features of the US Foreign Policy Towards the Central Asian States

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-81
Author(s):  
E. V. Kryzhko ◽  
P. I. Pashkovsky
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Mineral Resources ◽  
Political Influence ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
The Us

The article examines the features of the US foreign policy towards the Central Asian states in the post-bipolar period. The imperatives and constants, as well as the transformation of Washington’s Central Asian policy, have been characterized. It is shown that five Central Asian states have been in the focus of American foreign policy over the past thirty years. In the process of shaping the US foreign policy in Central Asia, the presence of significant reserves of energy and mineral resources in the region was of great importance. Therefore, rivalry for Caspian energy resources and their transportation routes came to the fore. In addition to diversifying transport and logistics flows and supporting American companies, the US energy policy in Central Asia was aimed at preventing the restoration of Russia’s economic and political influence, as well as countering the penetration of China, which is interested in economic cooperation with the countries of the region. During the period under review, the following transformation of mechanisms and means of Washington’s policy in the Central Asian direction was observed: the policy of “exporting democracy”; attempts to “nurture” the pro-American elite; striving to divide states into separate groups with permanent “appointment” of leaders; involvement in a unified military system to combat terrorism; impact on the consciousness of the population in order to destabilize geopolitical rivals; building cooperation on a pragmatic basis due to internal difficulties and external constraints. Central Asian states sympathized with the American course because of their interest in technology and investment. At the same time, these states in every possible way distanced themselves from the impulses of “democratization” from Washington. Kazakhstan was a permanent regional ally of the United States, to which Uzbekistan was striving to join. The second echelon in relations with the American side was occupied by Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. A feature of the positions of the Central Asian countries is the maximum benefit from cooperation with Washington while building good-neighborly relations with Russia and China, which is in dissonance with the regional imperatives of the United States. In the future, the American strategy in Central Asia will presumably proceed from the expediency of attracting regional allies and stimulating contradictions in order to contain geopolitical rivals in the region.

New Aspects of Discourse about the Berlin’s Realpolitik

2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (12) ◽  
pp. 30-40
Author(s):  
V. Vasil'ev
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
German Society ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Main Concern ◽  
European Security ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Government ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

The article investigates approaches taken by major political parties and civil society in the FRG toward the Transatlantic partnership. It reveals the tendencies of the prospective promotion of Berlin’s cooperation with Washington; the article also gives a forecast of further interaction between the EU and the USA, indicates the direction of discourse regarding the future Russia–Germany relations model in the context of the Ukrainian crisis and in reference to the increased transatlantic solidarity. Disputes in German socio-political circles on the issue of the FRG’s policy toward the U.S. are emerging all the time, but they have to be considered within a concrete historical and political context. Being of primary significance for all German chancellors, the Trans-Atlantic factor has been shaping itself in a controversial way as to the nation’s public opinion. This has been confirmed by many opinion polls, including the survey on the signing of the EU–U.S. Agreement on the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Chancellor A. Merkel is playing an important role: she is either ascribed full compliancy with Washington, or is being tentatively shown as a consistent government figure in advancing and upholding of Germany's and the EU's interests. A. Merkel has implemented her peace-seeking drive in undoing the Ukrainian tangle by setting up the “Normandy format” involving the leaders of Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine while having cleared it through with the U.S. President B. Obama well in advance. Despite the increasing criticism of Washington’s policy among some part of Germans, for the majority of German voters, the USA remains a country of implementable hopes, the only power in the world possessing a high education level and the most advanced technologies. Americans, for their part, are confident of the important role that Berlin plays in world politics, particularly in what concerns the maintenance of unity within the EU. Berlin aims at further constructive interaction with the USA in the frame of NATO as well as within other Trans-Atlantic formats. Notwithstanding the steady tendency toward increasing of the Washington policy’s critical perception degree in German society, officially Berlin continues as Washington’s true ally, partner and friend. There is every reason to believe that after the 2017 Bundestag elections, the new (the former) Chancellor will have to face a modernized Trans-Atlantic partnership philosophy, with a paradigm also devised in the spirit of the bloc discipline and commitments to allies. The main concern for Berlin is not to lose its sovereign right of decision-making, including the one that deals with problems of European security and relations with Moscow. Regrettably, Germany is not putting forward any innovative ideas on aligning a new architecture of European security with Russia’s participation. Meanwhile, German scholars and experts are trying to work out a tentative algorithm of a gradual return to the West’s full-fledged dialogue with Russia, which, unfortunately, is qualified as an opponent by many politicians. Predictably, the Crimea issue will remain a long-lasting political irritant in relations between Russia and Germany. Although not every aspect of Berlin’s activation in its foreign policy finds support of the German public, and the outburst of anti-American feeling is obvious, experts believe that the government of the FRG is “merely taking stock of these phenomena and ignores them”. Evident is the gap between the government's line and the feeling of the German parties’ basis – the public. It is noteworthy that the FRG has not yet adopted the Law on Holding General Federal Referendums on key issues of the domestic and foreign policy. There is every indication to assume that the real causes of abandoning the nationwide referendums are the reluctance of the German ruling bureaucracy and even its apprehensions of the negative voting returns on sensitive problems, – such as basic documents and decisions of the EU, the export of German arms, relations with the U.S., etc. The harmony between Berlin’s "Realpolitik" and German public opinion is not yet discernible within the system of Trans-Atlantic axes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document