Kazakhstan and the New International Politics of Eurasia
By Richard Weitz
Published in July 2008.
Introduction.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union in December 1991 ushered in a novel era in the international relations of Eurasia. The newly independent states of the region confronted the problem of achieving the twin goals of establishing their national independence while retaining beneficial relations with other former Soviet republics. One technique these countries have used is to deepen their ties with China, Europe, and the United States as well as the other major powers active in the region to balance Russia’s continuing preeminence. Another approach has been to promote cooperation among regional states, in a manner independent of, though not in conflict with, the great powers. Kazakhstan has emerged as a natural leader in these latter endeavors due to the size of its territory, its vast energy wealth, its relative political and ethnic stability, its early and sustained decision to transition from a command to a market-based economy, and its skillful diplomacy.
Kazakhstan’s geography has allowed it to exercise decisive influence in two of Eurasia’s most important subregions—Central Asia and the Caspian Sea. These areas are sometimes referred to as “Greater Central Asia,” but from Astana’s perspective might be termed “Kazakhstan’s extended neighborhood.” At a minimum, analysts traditionally include Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan in “Central Asia.” This approach may reflect the practice of Soviet ethnographers and political leaders, who divided the region into these five republics during the 1920s. In contrast, the “Caspian Basin region” typically includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, as well as parts of Iran and Russia. The past decade has made clear that other nearby countries also decisively affect political, economic, and security developments in these regions—notably Afghanistan, Iran, India, Mongolia, Pakistan, and Turkey.
All of these countries help shape the international politics of Eurasia. Their independence has made regional relations much more complex than during the original “great game” between Russia and Great Britain in the 19th century, when St. Petersburg and London could largely ignore or control local actors in their bipolar struggle for mastery of Eurasia. The involvement of so many external actors in the region, with their changing mixture of common and diverging interests, also has complicated the international politics of Eurasia, especially by expanding the local states’ room to maneuver. Although Russia, China, Europe, and the United States substantially affect regional developments, they cannot dictate outcomes the way imperial governments frequently did a century ago.
Yet, since the USSR’s collapse, the local nations have found it difficult to cooperate with one another. These states share unresolved disputes over borders, trade, visas, transportation, illegal migration, and natural resources such as water and gas. The Eurasian governments closed ranks behind the Uzbek government after the May 2005 anti-regime violence in Andijan, accepting the need for solidarity despite misgivings about the regional policies and domestic practices of Uzbek President Islam Karimov. Even so, the poor state of their mutual relations has meant that these countries regularly enjoy closer ties with external actors (through bilateral and multilateral mechanisms) than with each other.
Under President Nursultan Nazarbayev, who has been in office since independence, Kazakhstan has remained committed to a “multi-vector” foreign policy that seeks to maintain good relations with Russia, China, Japan, the United States, and the European Union as well as other countries with important economic, political, or other roles in Eurasia. Nazarbayev and his team have managed to stand largely aloof from the quicksand of regional great power diplomacy, which has ensnarled rival Uzbekistan, while eschewing the extreme isolationism of the government of Turkmenistan under former President Saparmurat Niyazov. In 2004, Foreign Minister Kasymzhomart Tokayev justified Kazakhstan’s “balanced and multidimensional policy” as “an objective necessity.” The policy’s application has sometimes annoyed Moscow (regarding Kazakhstan’s Trans-Caspian initiatives) as well as Washington (regarding Astana’s dealings with Tehran). Yet, it is hard to disagree with Tokayev’s explanation that, “Limiting ourselves to certain countries and regions could do serious harm to our national interests.”
As early as March 1994, Nazarbayev proposed the establishment of a Eurasian Union, but the plan failed to gain support among the other newly independent states that had only just rid themselves of a different (Soviet) type of union and were not eager to try another. Nazarbayev has subsequently reaffirmed his commitment to a union, launching a new initiative in April 2007 that focused on borders and water management, issues that had long complicated relations among Central Asian states but which they could clearly manage more effectively together than in isolation. A union of Central Asian states would represent a logical culmination of Kazakh efforts to strengthen regional autonomy and deepen local integration processes. Although the union would be independent of the CSTO, SCO, and other regional groups, and would exclude Russia, China, and other great powers from membership, the Eurasian grouping would not be directed against these institutions or countries. In fact, Nazarbayev’s union proposal effectively presumes that the great powers would remain sufficiently engaged in regional security issues to balance one another and thereby allow Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries room to maneuver.
Kazakh experts consider the deeper integration of Central Asian countries a natural process that, although often impeded by man-made obstacles, accords with the genuine national interests of these nations, which share historical and cultural ties as well as common borders and economic incentives for collaboration. To realize these advantages, proponents of greater unity argue that effective integration should entail the sharing of water and energy resources; additional improvements in the region’s transportation infrastructure; the establishment of common customs and trading tariffs; mechanisms to respond collectively to environmental threats and natural disasters; and support for region-wide tourist networks. More generally, supporters envisage a process of evolution from a free trade zone to a customs union to an economic union with ancillary political and other institutions.
Another economic factor, with political implications, inducing Kazakh leaders to promote regional integration is the belief that instability in neighboring countries could easily spill across state borders, either directly through imitative popular protests and refugee flows or indirectly by discouraging international capital markets from investing in the region. Despite recent Kazakh efforts to diversify their economic partners, Kazakhstan’s economy remains heavily dependent on foreign companies for capital and technology.
Kazakh and foreign experts argue that greater cooperation is required to resolve these disputes and better exploit the natural resources and pivotal location of Central Asia and the Caspian as natural transit routes for commerce between Europe and Asia. Enhanced collaboration is especially needed, they maintain, to counter transnational terrorist and criminal groups as well as exploit the economic comparative advantages enjoyed by Kazakhstan and neighboring states. By reducing inter-regional tensions and promoting deeper economic integration, these countries will become more attractive to foreign investors and enhance their collective leverage with external actors.
Since 2006, Nazarbayev has repeatedly proclaimed the goal of transforming Kazakhstan into one of the world’s 50 most competitive developed countries.11 Kazakh leaders believe that strong regional cooperation—ideally with a degree of integration that would both help harmonize regional economic policies and promote political, security, and other forms of collaboration—is essential for realizing this objective. Above all, it would allow Kazakh businesses to access new markets and exploit superior economies of scale from the resulting increase in labor, capital, and other factors of production. The Kazakh government has also sought to develop extensive security, economic, cultural, and other international links to enhance the country’s autonomy by limiting Kazakhstan’s dependence on any single supplier, customer, investor, or market.
At an October 22, 2007 conference in Washington, D.C., Erlan Idrissov, Ambassador of Kazakhstan to the United States, told the audience that, since independence, Kazakhs had resolved “not to take as a curse” their country’s landlocked status, but instead to “turn it into an opportunity and a benefit” by leading the drive for regional integration. In its foreign policies, Idrissov added, Kazakhstan operates on the principle that “one cannot prosper without being surrounded by prosperous countries.”
Furthermore, Kazakhs realized that their country’s large population of ethnic Russians and other ethnic communities makes it unlikely that Kazakhstan could remain unaffected by developments in neighboring countries. At independence, the country’s titular nationality actually constituted less than half the population. According to the 1989 Soviet census, ethnic Kazakhs comprised 39.5% of the population: Russians, 37.7%, Ukrainians, 5.4%; and Belorussians, 1.1% (i.e., ethnic Slavs amounted to 44.2% of the republic’s population). National identity, bilingualism, and dual citizenship emerged as especially important issues during the first few years of Kazakhstan’s independence. Some observers thought that the northern provinces, with their Slavic majorities, might seek unification with Russia.
The salience of these concerns subsequently declined due to the emigration of many ethnic Slavs, the higher birth rate of ethnic Kazakhs, the return of many exiled ethnic Kazakhs to their homeland (or that of their ancestors), the government’s tolerant language and ethnic practices, and the country’s booming economy, which has benefited large numbers of ethnic Slavs as well as ethnic Kazakhs. The decision of Kazakhstan’s leaders to stress loyalty to the state rather than any particular national identity was also essential in decreasing ethnic tensions. According to a 1999 census, 53.4% of the country’s population consisted of ethnic Kazakhs, 30% Russians, 3.7% Ukrainians, 2.5% Uzbeks, 2.4% Germans, 1.7% Tatars, 1.4% Uighurs, and 4.9% belonged to other ethnic groups. As of January 2007, Kazakhstan’s population consisted of 15,396,600 people—59.2% ethnic Kazakhs, 25.6% ethnic Russians, 2.9% ethnic Ukrainians, 2.9% ethnic Uzbeks, 1.5% Uighurs, 1.5% Tartars, and 1.4% ethnic Germans.
Although two of six million ethnic Russians have left Kazakhstan since its independence, the four million Russians that have remained have contributed considerably to the country’s economic development, educational achievements, and other socioeconomic advances. Many belong to Kazakhstan’s middle class, but this stratum encompasses many ethnic Kazakhs as well, including young professionals who have thrived as entrepreneurs under the government’s pro-business policies. This diverse composition has meant that no one ethnic group predominates in Kazakhstan’s middle class.
The November 2007 decision to award Kazakhstan chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in 2010 recognizes the country’s growing importance in Eurasia. Kazakh officials are characterizing this long-sought status as an endorsement of their country’s successful economic and political reforms, their leading role in Europe and Central Asia, and their contribution as a bridge between the former Soviet republics and other OSCE members. While acknowledging problems with Kazakhstan’s adherence to the principles of liberal democracy as practiced in the European Union and the United States, other governments hope that the OSCE chairmanship will encourage movement towards those standards in Kazakhstan as well as bolster the OSCE’s influence in the former Soviet bloc. The Kazakh government has launched a “Road to Europe” reform program to prepare the country for the economic and political challenges and opportunities the OSCE chairmanship will present.
In addition to skillful diplomacy, Kazakhstan’s emergence as the most important driver of regional integration within Central Asia and the Caspian Sea region has been attributed to the country’s powerful but not overwhelming attributes of state power. Kazakhstan possesses more energy resources than its less endowed neighbors. It also enjoys the region’s most dynamic economy and capital markets. Yet, Kazakhstan lacks the economic and military foundations to aspire for regional hegemony, especially given that its power and influence is dwarfed by that of Russia and China.
The remainder of this paper is divided into four sections that present different perspectives on Kazakhstan’s role in its “extended neighborhood.”
The first chapter considers how the most significant international institutions shaping regional politics relate to Kazakhstan. Astana plays an important role in all of them—either as a major partner in their programs or as a participant in their decision making. The next section analyzes the manner in which Kazakh leaders have sought to promote security and stability throughout Central Asia and the Caspian region as well as contribute to countering global nonproliferation and other threats. Kazakh officials recognize that adverse regional security developments could present both direct threats to Kazakhstan’s security as well as indirect damage to the country’s economic and political aspirations by deterring foreign investment, disrupting Eurasian trade and tourism, and generally making Kazakhstan’s environs less pleasant. The third chapter discusses Kazakhstan’s potential to become a regional energy and economic leader as well as various obstacles to the realization of this objective. The second and third sections are intimately linked in that security is essential for the continued energy and economic development of Kazakhstan and its neighborhood. To take but one example, Central Asian governments will remain reluctant to relax their border controls, which impede regional commerce, if they fear that transnational criminal organizations will exploit the opportunity for illicit purposes. The final section of the paper surveys Kazakhstan’s bilateral relationships with its immediate neighbors in order to provide yet another view on how Kazakhstan is responding to the challenges and opportunities presented by the new international politics of Eurasia.
Click here to continue reading Kazakhstan and the New International Politics of Eurasia.