What occurs in Central Asia today?

The book under very eloquent name was issued in Piter publishing house: “Not together: Russia and the countries of Central Asia”. Its author is Asylbek Knarovich Bisenbayev.

He is the Candidate of History, was in charge of the department of methodology of history and historiography of Institute of history and ethnology of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Kazakhstan, also was the reviewer, the head of the managing sector, the deputy and the first deputy head of the Analytical center of the Presidential Administration of the Republic of Kazakhstan. He headed the Liberal movement of Kazakhstan. He was the press secretary of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan since October 1998 to December 2001.
He is the author of more than two hundred scientific publications, ran the analytical program on the channel of Habar agency within several years. He is the author of scenarios, adviser and producer of documentary films and television projects.

At our request Asylbek Bisenbayev told to our portal about the book and about conclusions to which he came:

- You are the known expert in the sphere of national security of the Republic of Kazakhstan; how the idea to write the book “Not together: Russia and the countries of Central Asia” has appeared?

- The book is the result of long work on problems of evolution of Central Asia in XIX - the beginning of the XXI century. It is natural that it was impossible to bypass the question of so-called “Big game” between Russia and Great Britain. The articles on various questions of the political development of Kazakhstan and other countries of Central Asia are written in this period. The first generalization of the material was carried out in my book “Other Central Asia” which was published to Almaty (Kazakhstan) in 2003. The name was connected with that I tried to show an inaccuracy of the developed stereotypes, superficial ideas of Central Asia.

For example, the region description as the patrimony of the aggressive Islamism was the common place. Though, Islam has different extent of influence even on an everyday life, not to mention the policy. It was considered that the raw-material producing republics can't exist as the independent states. The majority of researchers considered that the countries are doomed to death without the support of Russia. But it turned out that the independence is quite realized and the existence of raw material resources even creates the conditions for successful development. Even such countries as Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan which turned out to be the economic outsiders, tested the civil war, revolutions, appeared to be the viable formations.

It is natural that unemployment is very high here, the hundred thousands of labor migrants work outside of the countries, but nobody calls statehood in question. The question of region democratization was especially difficult. The democracy appeared a serious call for many reasons for our states. But it doesn't mean at all that the people refused this prospect. All states of the region shake the social and political conflicts which participants demand the political freedoms.

The time passed and I tried to answer one more question, exciting many people – what external players influence the region development? Is the influence of the People's Republic of China, the USA and Russia is so strong, as was represented? What changes occurred for the last twenty years in geopolitical position of Central Asia? And the work on the new book also began. I named it as “Central Asia: the end of the game” and also offered it to Piter publishing house. After the discussion, the management of publishing house offered the new name: “Not together: Russia and the countries of Central Asia”. It seemed to me successful and corresponding to the book content. I am grateful to the publishing house and its workers who published the book in the short time.


- Is it possible to estimate this work as summing up of certain results for 20 years of the Post-Soviet development of the countries of the region?

- “Not together …” - such a result of twenty years' evolution of Central Asia and Russia. The book name, in my opinion, reflects the real situation.
But it is impossible to forget that we were together nearly for more than hundred years. Only in the second half of the XIX century, Russia strongly has risen in the region after the capture of the Central Asian states which either were a part of the empire, or remained as protectorates. Thereby, almost 150-year period of Kazakhstan occurrence came to the end and then the states of Central Asia in structure of the Russian Empire. Thus, the being in the uniform country occupied an interval of time from 60th of the XIX century to 1991. It is natural that it was impossible to overcome many distinctions between the people of the USSR during this time. As even the related Slavic people weren't integrated into the uniform nation for some centuries of being in structure of the uniform state.

The new independent states of the region had many problems, including that were caused by sharp fluctuations of the foreign policy of Russia. Some Russian politicians and statesmen seriously suggested “to unfasten from the Russian locomotive” five Central Asian republics and quickly to be a part of Big Europe. Others suggested to carry out the repartition of borders and to tear away a considerable part of Kazakhstan in favor of Russia. The third suggested to restore the former USSR on new principles which differed a little from the former in practice. The general spirit was that the Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Kirghiz, Turkmens and Tajiks all the same “there's no getting away” and constantly will be in an orbit of the Russian foreign policy.

It is necessary to say that the integration motives became not defining in the Russian policy at once. Also they were often not owing to aspiration to real association or cooperation in economy. The desire to show to the West that Russia can strengthen the positions on the international scene was determinative, including at the expense of Central Asia. To gain the weight on the international scene, the Russian politicians not once or twice declared the potential addition with China, India or Iran. Even without reckoning with that any of these countries didn't want the military-political union with Russia in any way in reality. The heads of the states of Central Asia, who supported the Russian position in various declarations, perfectly understood all that. And they aspired to use the turns of the Russian policy for obtaining the political dividends, economic support for themselves.

The policy of Russia in Central Asia is still notable for instability, crudity, lack of consistency, advance planning and understanding of existing contradictions between the countries. There were the problems in the relations between the people and the states of Central Asia and will exist still long time. Moreover, there will be new contradictions as well as in any other region.

For example, in the middle of the last century the issue of water resources was added with an ecological disaster of a world scale - the dying Aral. And at the end of the XX century also was added with the issue of the cross-border rivers, which become aggravated by the active use of waters in the territory of the People's Republic of China. The states of the region solved an important question – about the frontiers which changed repeatedly for the last two centuries. But some hotheads lift a subject of revision of borders during the crisis moments. Even one more complex and multi-aspect problem is the international terrorism, including the related question of peaceful settlement of Afghanistan. These and other problems in a context of policy of external players also became the object of studying in my book.

- They still argue on the limits of the term “Central Asia”. How do you define its borders?

- Really the dispute on borders of Central Asia is very old. The geographers, historians, geopolitics, culture experts participated in it. But the situation is facilitated by that Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan began to call itself as “Central Asia” at the suggestion of the president Nursultan Nazarbayev. At the heart of this decision there were the political reasons, including an element of farewell to the Soviet past. But is also historical, it is possible even to say, civilized delimitation of the region borders. There was the mutual trade, cultural influence, distribution of languages, the ways of managing, historical and political traditions. Therefore the Big Central Asia includes also Afghanistan, partially Iran, the Southern Siberia and Altai, Xinjiang, the Volga region, Mongolia.

- How the democracy “got accustomed” here? What are the features in the various countries of Central Asia?

- In the region there is an increase of social problems which inevitably affect a political situation. This process is caused by impetuous growth of corruption, lack of guarantees of a property, the rights of citizens, incompetent management, geographical remoteness from the development centers, raw character of economy and many other reasons.

It is natural that Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, having serious receipts at the expense of export of oil and gas, have possibility to carry out stronger social policy, rather than neighbors. Therefore, the extent of the conflicts’ increase in the region is different. But already all states have the signs of serious discontent with existing regimes which found the reflection in events in Andizhan (Uzbekistan), Zhanaozen (Kazakhstan), Osh (Kyrgyzstan) where there were open collisions between the authorities and the population. As a result of twenty years' evolution in the countries of the region there were authoritative regimes which interfere with democratic development of the states. And all this time the regimes face the resistance.

Stability means here the irremovability of the authorities and the democracy – the national vote for one candidate. But such interpretation of the democracy causes an accruing protest. Therefore, when some analysts write about historical hopelessness of the people of Central Asia on authoritarianism and despotism, it doesn't correspond to truth. There are no people who want to be the slaves. However many the absolute power and dictatorship lasted, they inevitably come to an end. In Central Asia the movement process to democracy is complicated by many circumstances – the cruel suppression of dissent, absence of democratic traditions, restrictions in the legislation, manipulations over an electoral process etc …

The important role is played also by an external factor. For example, fast evolution of Eastern Europe and Baltic, despite some excesses, is caused by serious support of this process from the EU. We are in an environment of far not democratic neighbors – China, Russia, Iran. The southern flank is the problem Afghanistan. It is possible even to say that democratization of the region isn't in the plans of our neighbors to whom the preservation of the existing regimes who are engaged in sale of national wealth is favorable.

- Do “color revolutions” or an echo of “Arab spring” possible in the region? What are the possible consequences in that case?

- I consider that revolutions are possible. All revolutions are the mistakes, miscalculations and crimes of the ruling regimes. People in the majority aspire to a peace resolution of conflicts. But the ruling regimes of the CIS aren't adjusted on dialogue with opposition. All official ideology tries to present the oppositionists as the politicians bought by the West living on the western grants and betraying the national interests. It is far from the truth. When there is no dialogue, when there is no possibility to protect the rights, to show the discontent at the top of the voice, to state the requirements, so the pressure accumulation in a copper of social and political contradictions then begins. And the silence is often louder than the roar of drums.

The revolutions arise not only owing to extreme degree of an impoverishment of the population. In the modern world it is very important that people support own advantage, the rights. There is a revolution when the law acts selectively, when it is possible for someone and is strictly forbidden for another, when corruption becomes a way of life and strikes blow to economic independence of people, when the person is defenseless before the authorities and the court makes unjust decisions, when the authorities proclaim the democracy, but it can't be used for positive changes. And as for me, the concept “color” revolution is a form of change of the power defined by internal contradictions, but not the “western” political technology introduced from the outside.

The difference of modern revolutions in the use of new technologies of communications, instant information, transfer for million people. But it is not Sharp's invention. V.I. Lenin wrote about that to grasp phone and telegraph, stations and bridges. Therefore, when they say that “color” revolutions differ from the “real” subjects, that it is carefully embedded by the West, so it seems essentially incorrect for me. All the more, such thesis, in my opinion, is indirect support of the dictators. All of them consider that the people love them and protest the groups of cosmopolitan youth, bought on the western grants and prepared in the special centers.

In compliance with this logic the real patriots love Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Hosni Mubarak which destroyed the own citizens including with the use of the chemical weapon, extorted the billions from own countries and hid them in foreign banks, forbade dissent, pursued opposition, frightened the people with secret police and suppressed discontent with armies. It turns out that the prisoners should obey not simply to supervisors, but also love them. It is the perverted logic. Therefore the roots of any revolution should be looked for within the country.

As to the Arab revolutions, they once again confirm that it is impossible to export the revolutions. The events from Tunisia to Syria show that there is no uniform scenario. Fight can be successful and bloodless as in Tunisia and can turn into civil war, as in Libya and Syria. The dictatorship can maneuver and try to rescue the system, having offered the leader. For example, after the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt, the army, the dictatorship stronghold, still constrains the democratic development of the country.

All countries of the Arab East were united that the dictatorships were created in disintegration of colonial empires. In the 50-60th years of the XX century these countries were notable for the domination of the patriarchal relations, poor development of economy, prevalence of country people, low level of political culture and literacy of the population, backwardness of institutes and traditions of civil society. Therefore the national leaders, such as Naser, Ben Bella, Assad and others were not only the leaders, but also the central figures of the state system.

The dictatorships remained even at the change of leaders. The contradiction was that the control system, characteristic for patriarchal societies, remained while there was a modernization. For example, we repeat the experiment of dictatorships of “the third world” with the creation of one-party political systems. And they couldn't create the system of communications between the leaders and the people there and gradually evolved in additional bureaucratic structures. During the Arab revolutions, numerous “ruling” parties didn't show themselves in any way, didn't protect the leaders because simulated political process, created visibility of national representation. Even the economic development, introduction of new technologies and communications defines the need of discharge from the power of dictators who want to supervise all aspects of life of the person still. And it is already impossible.

There was a similar situation in Central Asia and Russia. The people have changed for twenty years. Even the foreign tourism opens a set of shortcomings of our countries, not mentioning the flow of information which falls upon the heads of people. Today the development and dictatorship especially strongly contradict each other. These are the antagonists. Therefore, for example, the efforts on development of a science, technologies in our countries won't bring the results, because a problem not in science funding, but in need of real democratization of policy, realization of human rights and the citizen.

- How is it possible to estimate the relations between the neighbors? Is there possibility of the serious conflicts?

- The relations between the neighboring states of Central Asia are rather difficult. There is the inertia of old real and far-fetched offenses and problems. In the region there were always contradictions between the settled people and nomads, between the Turkic-speaking and Iranian-speaking people, between the representatives of different religions and beliefs. The new people were added also, arisen in the conditions of the USSR and after its disintegration.

The authorities could settle the boundary questions though it was very hard. And the borders ceased to be transparent. Turkmenistan proclaimed the neutrality and closed the borders. Uzbekistan mined the borders for some time and as the result the civilians suffered. Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, having entered SCO, could solve an old issue of borders with the People's Republic of China.

The disintegration of the USSR led to disappearance of the regulating center and sharply there was a question of water resources which was aggravated with policy of China on a fence of considerable resources of the transboundary rivers. Mass unemployment led to that the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Kyrgyz went off to Russia and other countries in search of a living. Overlapping of means of communication, toughening of frontier and visa regime, water or gas blackmail and many other things became the pressure proven means at each other.

Central Asia is in dynamics. The change of the international environment raises or reduces the capacity of the states. The information war flashes sometimes between the states. So the disputed potential is very great. The aspiration to peace negotiation process meanwhile prevails, but it is impossible to exclude extreme scenarios, because not everything depends on the states of the region. New invasions of fighters are fraught with probability of kindling of the internal conflicts as the protest potential is great in all countries. The probable war of the West with Iran can cause a domino effect in Central Asia. Therefore peacekeeping in Central Asia is a daily and difficult process.

- Is the problem of water resources availability the main problem in the relations of the countries of the region?

- There are a lot of problems in the relations between the countries of Central Asia and water problem is one of the main. It is the whole ball of acute contradictions for Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and South Kazakhstan. Water is the electric power, irrigation agriculture, animal husbandry, activity of the various enterprises. Therefore it is impossible to contemplate a problem only as fight for sources of drinking water.

The cotton crops, construction of various hydraulic constructions, chemicalization led to exhaustion and deterioration of water state. Hence there are the diseases and high mortality. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan try to solve a question of dependence on supply of gas from Uzbekistan, including at the expense of construction of new power plants. It means the active accumulation of water during the summer period and dumping in the winter. The situation of pressure upon agriculture and economy of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan is created which are compelled to build the expensive constructions on regulation of water drain.

Kyrgyzstan insists on individual share of neighbors in the maintenance of dams and other hydraulic constructions in the absence of means. And their unsatisfactory condition can lead to accident and flooding of huge territories in Kazakhstan. The attempts of various integration structures, and there are a lot of them, don't give the real result. The position of Russia isn't always adequate to a situation. For example, the construction of Rogunsky hydroelectric power station is the essential question for Tajikistan. In turn, Uzbekistan will face a sharp aggravation of water supply with putting of this hydroelectric power station into operation. In 2009 the president Dmitry Medvedev supported Uzbekistan. The Tajik party showed the sharp discontent by that. It was easy to count such reaction of the Tajiks.

The former Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov declared the need of idea renewal of the drain transfer of the Siberian rivers to Central Asia. But the active economic development of Xinjiang already led to a powerful fence of water from Irtysh for needs of the People's Republic of China. If this fantastic project would be realized and the remained water will go to Central Asia, so Russia will have the difficulties. The problem of water reflects also the extent of real integration in Central Asia and the CIS. Meanwhile there are disputes and nobody wants to renounce principles.

- What is the role of Russia in the region today? Is it leaves or comes back?

- It is the most difficult question. During all twenty years, the people of the region attentively looked that occurs in Russia and as Russia carries out the policy in Central Asia. The relation to Russian population which lived in Central Asia became the indicator. Some families lived here for some centuries and some arrived in the 80th years of the last century. It is natural that the disintegration of the USSR caused the desire to get over on the historical Homeland. Kazakhstan, where there was especially a lot of the Russian-speaking population (the Russian, Ukrainians, Belarusians), repeatedly offered the procedure of the facilitated acceptance of nationality, but Russia insisted on acceptance of dual citizenship. Though, the West took an opposite position in negotiations with the countries.

A set of decisions at level of the governments were accepted in the CIS which weren't carried out in reality. In the peak of migration, the beginning and the middle of the 90th years, Russia met the coming back not too friendly. It is enough to thumb through the Russian press of those of years. There were also anti-Russian moods in the states of Central Asia. The official policy of the replacement of the Russians wasn't carried out anywhere, but it existed in the different republics both in different degree and at different level.

The politics of Russia didn't differ by the reasonableness in the region. For example, the Russian head could support the idea of construction of hydroelectric power station in one republic, and it caused the discontent in another. Even it is impossible to make comments on position of Central Asian guest workers in Russia. If to read what is written about Ukraine, Belarus in some Russian editions, so it is possible to come to a conclusion that the inadequate politicians head these loser countries. Some “scientists” seriously try to prove that such people as the Ukrainians and Belarusians simply aren't present. And these languages are defective and people are defective too. And it is about the closest people with whom they are connected not only by many pages of history of Russia, but also by consanguinity! And we understand what to wait if they write so about the blood brothers…

If to compare the politics of the USA, China and Russia in the region, so this comparison is far not in favor of the last one. The USA could solve some problems at once. It is the investment in economy. The successful development of Kazakhstan is obliged to investments in oil and gas sector in many respects which was made by the American companies in the early nineties of the last century. The Americans and their allies could perform successful operation in Afghanistan. Certainly, it is still far to the world there. But the prospects aren't so gloomy, as the Russian press tries to represent.

Not only the West, but also China, India actively put huge amounts of money in economy of Afghanistan. Uzbekistan carries out the laying of the railways in this country. Karzai's administration and the western allies actively carry on negotiations with tribal chiefs, create the interest in economic development and refusal of drugs production. The stabilization of Afghanistan seriously changes a picture of Big Central Asia. There were ancient trading ways through Afghanistan from China to Hindustan and Iran and from there to South East Asia, the Arab world and Europe. Extraction of natural resources of Afghanistan will allow this country to receive considerable means from the main importers – roughly developing China and India. Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan will have an opportunity of gas export to India. It is natural that it will weaken the positions of Russia in the region in bigger degree.

China became the main trading and economic partner for all countries of the region. The equipment, agricultural production, consumer goods come from there. China imports raw materials, energy carriers. Russia seriously loses in all directions. It didn't undertake any real steps during the break of Islamic fighters on a joint of centuries on the territory of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Russia is not the serious investor. Russia can't provide the modern technologies and equipment. Russia also doesn't show an example of democratic process. And it gradually conducts to reorientation of the countries of Central Asia to new external partners. But again should notice that it is ambiguous process. The attacks of mutual love happen, when for example the USA insists on real democratization or when the next attack of China phobia begins. But the distance tendency nevertheless exists and gains in strength.

- What are the interests of the USA and Turkey in Central Asia?

- Interests of the USA in the region in modern conditions are connected with need of the solution of several problems. First of all it is Afghanistan. Our countries are necessary for the organization of deliveries and gradual withdrawal of troops. The presence in the region will be defined by terms of this problem solution. By the way, despite the concern on the occasion of the American military presence, all countries of Central Asia and Russia welcomed it in practice. And they even offered various options of bases placement.

Kyrgyzstan annually receives hundred million dollars thanks to “Manas”. And as it usually happens, the service system was already created round the base. And it is a serious contribution to economy for the small and rather poor country. Therefore the issue about “Manas” rises systematically, discussed, but the base remains, though changes the name.

The second problem is Iran. Here the opposition will be long, it is very inconvenient to predict the events. In any case, the military operation is hardly possible soon. But the countries of Central Asia are necessary for both parties at any turn of events.

Nevertheless, the key interests of the USA are far outside of Central Asia. Today it is Maghreb and the Middle East. Exactly now the world problems are concentrated here. Therefore the basic for the USA in Central Asia is motivation to democracy at stability preservation. Here is such paradox.

Now as concerns Turkey. In the 90th years of the XX century there was a theoretical dispute on a Turkish and Iranian way of the states development of Central Asia. But the choice was made absolutely in other direction - in favor of authoritative secular models. The Islamic institutes are supported until they support the regimes. No more. As soon as there is a threat, the regimes cruelly pursue the real or imagined politically loaded Muslims who are called as extremists. All can get to this category, who is dissatisfied with regime. And all this looks as quite respectable fight against the international terrorism, though in practice this is the elementary suppression of dissent.

The modern Turkey sharply strengthened the activity in connection with the Arab revolutions. Even started talking about the return of times of the Ottoman Empire which governed the Arab world and Turks-Mamluks dominated in the countries of Maghreb. Turkey really tried to be at the head of the Turkish-speaking world, as the Central Asian countries, except for Tajikistan, were the Turkish-speaking. But nobody wanted to change one big brother for another. The region waited the investments from Turkey, but they were insignificant. Waited for the help in reforming of armies, but also this help was weak. Turkey managed to take positions in education, but the competitors are the American, European, Russian and Chinese educational institutions. Here is small level of Turkey influence on processes in the region. The main cooperation passed to area of a cultural exchange.

- Is the theme of the integration actual in the region?

- The concept “integration” is used at the slightest pretext. Some thousand documents are signed in the CIS, but things haven't got forward an inch. CSTO, the Customs Union, the Eurasian Economic Community, the Union of Russia and Belarus and various associations are created in Central Asia. The history of the CIS began with formation as a part of three Slavic states. And some leaders of Central Asia suggested to create the regional alternative association. The position of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan which opposed such plans, led to that the summit took place in Almaty which founded the CIS in December, 1991. The GUUAM showed that it is possible to “be on friendly terms” against other states of the CIS. There were heavy information wars between the states within twenty years repeatedly. So it wasn't so simple with integration.

Also it is necessary to look into the concept of integration. What is the integration? It is the association of parts in the whole. We were the parts of the whole approximately to the middle of the 90th years, before active privatization, realization of new international relations, formation of domestic markets, definition of vectors of the state development, establishment of new economic communications. That is until we were the splinters of the former USSR. Then it was still possible to carry out the restoration of the lost. But it was possible to make it in full mainly by power methods.

Now the situation sharply changed. We are already different. And not only owing to potential, but also structure of economy, extent of privatization, the international relations and foreign policy, state system, extent of democratization, openness of the countries and human rights. We went far from the unity to the USSR. And the inertia of disintegration proceeds. Therefore the integration subject, judging by the press, is urgent, but to there is absolutely other process in reality.

The integration urgency often connect with that Europe is actively integrated. But the basic and fundamental principles are at the heart of the European integration– market economy, real democracy, human rights, political freedoms… And we didn't reach it yet. Even the fundamental principles of unity aren't formulated in integration associations. Our economies are notable for the corruption, intervention of bureaucracy which uses the possibilities for regulation of activity of managing subjects in own interests, raw character, economic unfreedom of the citizens. I will not speak even about a political component. The history doesn't know the voluntary and equal in rights integration of not democratic states. Any authoritative head won't allow to restrain own possibilities. Here are all problems. The declarations are signed and integration structures are created, the simplest questions aren't solved to please a universal tendency.