Martha Brill Olcott is a senior associate with the Russian & Eurasian Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. She has recently authored a book “Central Asia’s Second Chance”. Dr. Olcott has kindly shared her views with BT. Q.: What decisions taken in Central Asia in the past 15 years ago — since gaining independence — will have particularly serious implications for the region's future? M. Olcott: There are several decisions taken in national capitals that have had an impact on the entire region. Probably the most profound of these was the decision by Uzbekistan, following bombings in Tashkent in early 1999, to effectively close its borders with the neighboring states. This action obviously caused severe dislocations to those living in or near the border regions, but most importantly it effectively froze the development of intra-regional trade, especially since it followed relatively shortly after the government in Tashkent decided to abandon its financial stabilization program, and chose instead to support a sharply undervalued [local currency] som. This decision had a profoundly negative effect upon the economic development of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in particular. In general the decision to artificially support the Uzbek som was a harmful one, for the prospects of Uzbek economic development as much as it was for the economies of the neighboring states. Uzbekistan lost its starting advantage as a potential magnet for investment in projects in the service sector and in light engineering. And over time the on-hand-capital of small and medium sized entrepreneurs in Uzbekistan, which was relatively significant until late 1993, has almost completely evaporated. Similarly, the decision by Saparmurad Niyazov [late president of Turkmenistan] to predicate his foreign policy on the doctrine of "positive neutrality." This policy defies explanation in terms of what it facilitated, but was quite clear as to what it impeded. Turk-menistan refused to join any regional organization (it remained in the CIS), thus further impeding the cause of regional integration. And without this integration the size of the Central Asian/south Siberian market has been sharply reduced, and pro-spects for creating a strong agro-industry and textile or clothing industry, which could have provided a needed source of jobs in the region has also diminished. Q.: The landlocked countries of Central Asia surrounded by some of the world's "hot spots" face a number of common threats/risks, such as security issues, access to other markets, water and energy resources. Yet a lot of times the countries find it difficult to cooperate on these issues. What, in your view, are the main stumbling blocks to closer cooperation? M. Olcott: The Central Asian states recognize that they face a series of shared security threats, but they frequently define their individual national interest in ways that make regional cooperation more difficult. This was cetainly the case with regard to the situation in Afgha-nistan prior to September 2001, when Turkme-nistan defacto recognized the rule of Taliban, and Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan all to varying degree believed their national security directly undermined by it, because of the presence of armed anti-government factions on Afghan soil. Similarly, while everyone in the region recognizes that the regional water basin is a common one, each country wants to use all the water available to it to advance its own direct economic interests, and hold out hope that the reluctance of any state in the region to use force against any other state will keep the situation under control. In fact, this has pretty much been the case; the Uzbeks did mine their borders to keep Kyrgyz and Tajiks out, which led to some loss of life before this policy was reversed, and Tashkent sent planes over Toktogul dam in Kyrgyzstan to make the point that if seasonal water patterns were disturbed and they lost irrigation they were capable of a military response. But to date, especially by comparison with the south Caucasus the states have been pretty good at keeping tensions from turning violent. And if anything, the prospects of regional cooperation, at least at the level of elite dialogue have improved over time.
|
RSS