Igor, may political event in Central Asia – the state visit of the President Mirziyoyev in the White house culminated in a classic act of globalization - with the signing of America and Uzbekistan the large volume of memoranda in various areas including the trump promise to help with the introduction of RPR in the WTO. As You consider the geopolitical implications of the stated trend of "rebooting" the Uzbek-American relations? What wants in the finals of "America above all" - to stake for centuries in the Uzbek economy?
Frankly, I see here some "act of globalization". It is, incidentally, a common mistake of our "internationals" - the lack of a conceptual framework. In the result, the word globalization refer to the phenomenon that is related to internationalization. Well and it, in turn, boldly confused with integration. However, it's another story, so back to the topic of our conversation - the Uzbek-American relations.
By the end of 2014 was safe to say that the "Central Asian project", States that 1.0 is associated with emergence after the Soviet collapse, the independent republics that 2.0 - military presence in the region for operations in Afghanistan is exhausted. But Obama proposed the principles of "promotion and support of democratic processes" in its Western interpretation is not only not working, but they are perceived by local political elites "in bayonets". Moreover, as practice has shown - like hard against had a very good reason. Can't the principles of Western democracy to be automatically and instantly transplanted to local soil, fraught with blood and social cataclysms...
In the end, have been a somewhat paradoxical situation. Presence in Central Asia for a number of reasons - strategic containment of China, and tactical functioning of the Northern distribution network - the Americans need. But the working strategies of this presence - no.
In Washington stiffened and his theses "US Policy in Central Asia 3.0", one of which was the development of relations with two key States of the region - Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Moreover, he wrote these theses people are the most pragmatic, political correctness in the anamnesis is not burdened, relying on the principles of "less ideology in bilateral relations", "no need to dwell on the issues of democracy and someone's rights, most importantly - mutually beneficial relationships", and it is desirable to cover as many areas as possible.
That is, trump would have contacts with Islam Abduganievich Karimov went, not really looking back at howl on this occasion the Democrats, but - there is a godsend, in a sense, became Shavkat Mirziyoev Miromonovich with its reform program. He is a patriot to the bone, as they say, a powerful politician. His reform is an objective need for further development of Uzbekistan as a regional power and it so happened that the objective and subjective conditions for the resumption of Uzbek-American relations, "reset", as you put it, the new Uzbek leader and new President of the USA match.
As for the "stake in the economy"... the Interests of Washington in establishing close relations with Tashkent are very diverse - from economic to military-political. Americans need a serious partner in the region, Uzbekistan, along with Kazakhstan, fits optimally. Therefore, the development of dialogue Tashkent-Washington on a wide range of issues is inevitable.
In what configuration America could dispose of his diplomatic achievement by strengthening geostrategic positions in Central Asia?
Let's start with the fact that until about the strengthening of the geostrategic position of the U.S. in Central Asia speak a little premature. There are intentions, which, of course, backed up by case studies of protocols and agreements, but it's too soon to talk about concrete results of the implementation of these cases. Let's get back to this issue next year.
As to how exactly America will dispose of the recovered positions in the region - I suspect Washington is no clear plan of action. The main issue here is, of course, Afghanistan, and, of course, the US administration expects more active participation of the countries of Central Asia, especially Tashkent.
All the rest - and the growth of Chinese influence and the Russian presence and expulsion of Iran - while at the level of plans with no specific shape. Therefore, we can assume things, put forward some hypotheses - but all this today is from the category of divination.
Before Uzbekistan's relations with America have improved and Nursultan Nazarbayev. How realistic is it that there will be a tripartite regional Council - Washington-Astana-Tashkent? And how Russia could respond to a possible change of political platform in Central Asia, where Russia has also two partners in the EEU, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan the same.
First of all, the U.S.-Kazakhstan relationship has always been quite stable, positive and, apparently, quite mutually beneficial. USA is in the top ten leading economic partners of Kazakhstan, are working American company. Washington has no serious contradictions with Astana in the approach to a number of topical foreign policy issues, moreover, the number of issues they share similar approaches. So there everything is stable, positive and no need to "build".
In relation to the possibility of some of the Union "Washington-Astana-Tashkent", I confess that I love to listen to talk about these "axes" and "unions" - because every time I admire the clarity of the consciousness of those who lead these conversations.
That is why not to ask the question, what is the point of such a Union for each of the participants, Washington, Astana, Tashkent? What problem it should solve? On which calls to answer, simply put, against whom to be friends?
So talk about the possibility of such a Union at this stage - they're sort of scary and samozatachivanie. After all, whatever we talked about Central Asia's importance - and indeed it is - we should not forget that, except for the Afghan problem, this region is not included in the list of foreign policy priorities trump. The current surge of activity in relations between Washington and Astana and Tashkent - it is, in part, for growth, for the future. Strategy there is no conversation, there is a decision of tasks of tactical nature - the functioning of the Northern distribution network, a more active participation of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in the Afghan settlement, the expansion into the markets of these countries.
Judge for yourself - the trade turnover between Astana and Beijing last year - about $ 10 billion, with the Americans - about half a billion. Tashkent has a Washington turnover in the past year - a little more than $ 210 million, with Beijing, 4 billion. I'm not talking about joint Russian-Chinese infrastructure projects in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in the framework of the initiative "One belt and One road". So if you have nothing to talk about - though too with great reserve - so it is about a Union of "Astana-Beijing-Tashkent". But he is from the fantasy, since both China and Uzbekistan are trying fundamental issues to be solved in the framework of bilateral relations, and not through "unions" and "axis".
Mirziyoev the President on the way to Washington landed in London, where he had a dialogue with the Deputy Minister of indel Britain. In what logic will operate monarchical England than fueled her interest in collaboration and cooperation with Uzbekistan at the current time?
Don't know, frankly, what interests in Uzbekistan the English monarchy, did not think once about this question. But in relation to the contacts of Tashkent with the United Kingdom would like to remind you that, firstly, London is one of the world's major financial centers. To establish a relationship which, in the light of the reform of the Uzbek economy, Tashkent rightly believes is not superfluous.
Secondly, the UK is one of the world's leading players, the consultation with which any state is not redundant.
How would You comment the explanation Mr. Mirzieev Trump the political direction of his country, Uzbekistan is a member of the non-aligned Movement (refusal of accommodation on its territory of foreign military bases), is not a CSTO member and not going to join the Eurasian economic Union, in which the core is Russia. Uzbekistan claims to political and economic self-sufficiency?
You know, Uzbekistan is not just a "claim" on the political and economic self-sufficiency, he is in fact a powerful economic and military relations regional power capable of generating and, more importantly, to pursue an independent foreign policy in the national interest.
By achieving this, by the way, and without foreign military presence and without the participation of the CSTO, without joining to the EEU.
And that it is important to understand Moscow and all the rest, the same Washington, Tashkent does not intend to change his principles. By the way, now, if this is the immutability of the course of Uzbekistan met in the minds of some experts - maybe less would be talking about some "shifts of fortune" in one direction or another.
I repeat and I repeat again - Uzbekistan will be neither Pro-Chinese nor Pro-Russian nor Pro-American. It will be extremely prozacskj. Anyway - as long as power is the current political elite.
And here, by the way, this principle of non-alignment and the pursuit of self-sufficiency, lie the answers to questions about the "depth" of the strategic partnership between Tashkent and other States, the participation of Uzbekistan in various cross-border projects and many other things that interested observers.
By the way, that this thesis - the principles of economic self-sufficiency and the independent Uzbekistan focused primarily on their own national interests in foreign policy always causes a very interesting reaction from opponents. In short, they doubt that such a thing is possible in the modern world, and especially, for some reason, it is possible to Tashkent.
Of course, complete economic self-sufficiency in the current environment - utopia. The holding is completely independent from major global players and some regional countries foreign policy, too, to anyone not yet succeeded. But here, as in the famous joke, "there are nuances". You can blindly and enthusiastically fall in import dependence - and it is possible to maintain and develop its own production, though not in all, but in strategically important sectors. You can chase the Chimera of "recognition by the international community" and play politics of world powers - and is not engaging in an antagonistic contradiction, playing on the disagreements between the parties to firmly and consistently defend its interests in this specific sphere. Tashkent chose the second option, and as a regional power he has every opportunity to follow that course.
In the market of Uzbekistan want to gain a foothold transnational megacorporations – "General Electric", Boeing, Amazon and several others, in addition to the investment portfolio, assuming a return with profit. How to combine the principles of independence of Uzbekistan with an abundance of American players in the economy, or investment debts Mirziyoev will leave to future generations? Whereas Russia is a quarter of a century investing in the social stability of RPR - taking migration flows. What conclusions should be made by Moscow in the context of real globalization in Central Asia?
Well, to discuss the danger of loss of independence of Uzbekistan, because of the abundance of American players in the economy - let's wait for this "abundance". While all letters of intent, nothing more. Which, incidentally, has said recently himself, Shavkat Mirziyoev, stating that "the agreement is there, but investment conditions are still specified. Moreover, the us makes quite high demands - "the creation of a sterile transparency", to which Uzbekistan is not quite ready yet.
So, it is appropriate to speak not about the activity in Uzbekistan, American business, and the active desire to increase their presence in the country of South Korean, Chinese and Turkish companies. And here, by the way, the answer to concerns about the "abundance" of players from any particular countries in competition with businessmen from other countries, whose leadership, and their actions are actively supported, opportunities to monopolize Uzbek market one player is impeded, no?
As for the "Russian investments in the stability" of Uzbekistan... Yes, there are, not only in migrants but also in other areas, for example in the supply of a number of weapons at domestic Russian prices. But let's look at the issue from the other side. First, well, no Tashkent plans to break off relations with Russia. There is the word "all". And no need to dramatize the situation. In some areas, the Tashkent were received and will make decisions based not on "likes" and "gratitude" - like categories in Realpolitik does not exist, and on the basis of its own national interests.
Secondly, I want to remind that "investing" in stability was aimed not only to Uzbekistan, but is much broader in the stability of our southern borders. So, Tashkent is probably not the only beneficiary, isn't it?
And in the third place. International relations are always dynamic. Want to keep your job, your status in our world - fight for it, keep their competitive edge, keep its, so to speak, exclusivity as economic and foreign policy partner for the other side. Old merits is not particularly listed.
And this is the main conclusion, which, in my opinion, is to make Moscow in relations with Tashkent.
Full text of the interview. The option of reductions posted at: https://www.ritmeurasia.org/news--2018-06-14--tashkent-i-vashington-dialog-cenoju-v-milliardy-36993
- 29-05-2012Drugs in the service of the Third Reich
- 12-09-2010Many experts believe the best tank Merkava main battle tank in the world
- 12-09-2010The Minister of defence of Germany introduced draft large-scale reform of the armed forces
- 21-04-2001To the question about the war of the fourth sphere