Mackinder’s theory of geopolitics pitted naval powers such as the United Kingdom and later the United States, against land-based powers such as Germany and Russia for control of the Eurasian Heartland. In the context of the Cold War, the heartland was often defined as the Soviet Union and these ideas would play a crucial role in influencing American strategies towards the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). However, all of these fell apart with the collapse of the Soviet Union, which in turn appeared to grant the United States control over Eurasia and perhaps over the fabled World Island. Despite this turn of events, it would also appear that no one power possessed control over the region. Therefore, the core argument of this essay is that it is China rather than Russia that is the land power of the 21st century. This is partially due to changes in the Post Cold War international system, primarily those in Sino-Russian relations, as well as China’s increasing centrality to the former Soviet states. Therefore, in order to explore this question, the study will attempt to utilise Mackinder’s theories outlined in “Democratic Ideals and Reality” in the context of Chinese policy towards Eurasia, in order to determine how China contributes as much to the concept of Eurasia as Russia did. By doing so, China is following a precedent in Eurasia that predates Mackinder's theories and Russian involvement in the region by several centuries, thus posing a new source of experience from the 20th-century power politics that had dominated Eurasia for the past century.
{"title":"Towards an Asian Eurasia: Mackinder’s heartland theory and the return of China to Eurasia","authors":"Tom Harper","doi":"10.22261/CRZXUW","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22261/CRZXUW","url":null,"abstract":"Mackinder’s theory of geopolitics pitted naval powers such as the United Kingdom and later the United States, against land-based powers such as Germany and Russia for control of the Eurasian Heartland. In the context of the Cold War, the heartland was often defined as the Soviet Union and these ideas would play a crucial role in influencing American strategies towards the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). However, all of these fell apart with the collapse of the Soviet Union, which in turn appeared to grant the United States control over Eurasia and perhaps over the fabled World Island. Despite this turn of events, it would also appear that no one power possessed control over the region. Therefore, the core argument of this essay is that it is China rather than Russia that is the land power of the 21st century. This is partially due to changes in the Post Cold War international system, primarily those in Sino-Russian relations, as well as China’s increasing centrality to the former Soviet states. Therefore, in order to explore this question, the study will attempt to utilise Mackinder’s theories outlined in “Democratic Ideals and Reality” in the context of Chinese policy towards Eurasia, in order to determine how China contributes as much to the concept of Eurasia as Russia did. By doing so, China is following a precedent in Eurasia that predates Mackinder's theories and Russian involvement in the region by several centuries, thus posing a new source of experience from the 20th-century power politics that had dominated Eurasia for the past century.","PeriodicalId":328462,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Eurasian Studies","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134510626","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the positive conclusion of the Iran nuclear deal, Iran is enhancing economic, military, energy and security ties with many countries, particularly with its Caucasus and Central Asian neighbours. Relations with Russia and China — which never stopped — are experiencing a new boom. Access to international financial markets — allowed by the progressive lifting of sanctions — coupled with the expected revenues from oil exports will modernise the Iranian industrial structure and make resources available for new infrastructure projects. This article approaches Iran’s geopolitics from a peculiar angle, that is through analysis of the offers Iran made in 2003 and 2005 to the United States and the European Union for solving the nuclear dispute. This article argues, firstly, that these proposals — focused not just on nuclear issues, but also on geopolitical matters — can shed light on how Iran shapes and conveys its geopolitical role in the Middle East and Central Asia; secondly, that such a role has been “legitimised” by global players like the United States, China, Russia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the European Union (i.e., the 5 + 1 countries which participated at the last round of the nuclear deal) through the positive conclusion of the deal; and, finally, that Iran’s geopolitical role within the greater Eurasian space will increasingly assume more important dimensions.
{"title":"Iran’s geopolitics in Eurasia after the nuclear deal","authors":"Noemi M. Rocca","doi":"10.22261/ZHTK8T","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22261/ZHTK8T","url":null,"abstract":"Since the positive conclusion of the Iran nuclear deal, Iran is enhancing economic, military, energy and security ties with many countries, particularly with its Caucasus and Central Asian neighbours. Relations with Russia and China — which never stopped — are experiencing a new boom. Access to international financial markets — allowed by the progressive lifting of sanctions — coupled with the expected revenues from oil exports will modernise the Iranian industrial structure and make resources available for new infrastructure projects. This article approaches Iran’s geopolitics from a peculiar angle, that is through analysis of the offers Iran made in 2003 and 2005 to the United States and the European Union for solving the nuclear dispute. This article argues, firstly, that these proposals — focused not just on nuclear issues, but also on geopolitical matters — can shed light on how Iran shapes and conveys its geopolitical role in the Middle East and Central Asia; secondly, that such a role has been “legitimised” by global players like the United States, China, Russia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the European Union (i.e., the 5 + 1 countries which participated at the last round of the nuclear deal) through the positive conclusion of the deal; and, finally, that Iran’s geopolitical role within the greater Eurasian space will increasingly assume more important dimensions.","PeriodicalId":328462,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Eurasian Studies","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116261954","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Armenian enigma","authors":"A. Khanbaghi","doi":"10.22261/S30H5T","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22261/S30H5T","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":328462,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Eurasian Studies","volume":"208 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126088305","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Gwadar Port is the southern hub of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which connects China’s northwestern Xinjiang province to the Arabian Sea. A modern, deep-sea port completed in 2007, Gwadar gives China quick access to ports in the Middle East and Africa. By bypassing the Straits of Malacca and the South China Sea, it cuts the distance from China to Europe from 45 to 10 days. The $46 billion, 3,000-km economic corridor of roads, railways, and pipelines is expected to boost trade and development not only in Pakistan and China but also along the entire Eurasian Silk Road. As an outlet to the sea, the CPEC promises to open up the vast potential of landlocked Central Asia. This article studies the CPEC as a case of South– South cooperation. It examines Pakistan’s developmental challenges and its balancing of relations with China, the US, and domestic stakeholders. It considers the seeming inconsistency of China’s warm relations with Pakistan while facing Muslim Uighur unrest at home and assesses China’s wider role and purpose in South–South cooperation.
{"title":"Gwadar: A case of South–South cooperation","authors":"Michael Tai","doi":"10.22261/YQ3D9P","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22261/YQ3D9P","url":null,"abstract":"Gwadar Port is the southern hub of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which connects China’s northwestern Xinjiang province to the Arabian Sea. A modern, deep-sea port completed in 2007, Gwadar gives China quick access to ports in the Middle East and Africa. By bypassing the Straits of Malacca and the South China Sea, it cuts the distance from China to Europe from 45 to 10 days. The $46 billion, 3,000-km economic corridor of roads, railways, and pipelines is expected to boost trade and development not only in Pakistan and China but also along the entire Eurasian Silk Road. As an outlet to the sea, the CPEC promises to open up the vast potential of landlocked Central Asia. This article studies the CPEC as a case of South– South cooperation. It examines Pakistan’s developmental challenges and its balancing of relations with China, the US, and domestic stakeholders. It considers the seeming inconsistency of China’s warm relations with Pakistan while facing Muslim Uighur unrest at home and assesses China’s wider role and purpose in South–South cooperation.","PeriodicalId":328462,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Eurasian Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132780192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Russia and China in the age of grand Eurasian projects: Prospects for integration between the Silk Road Economic Belt and the Eurasian Economic Union","authors":"Kaneshko Sangar","doi":"10.22261/YDG5KF","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22261/YDG5KF","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":328462,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Eurasian Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129765527","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article discusses the “16+1” format initiated in 2012 as a platform for economic, trade, and cultural cooperation between Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and China. As Chinese authorities claim, the “16+1” initiative is complementary to the “New Silk Road” strategy, being a pragmatic formula without political goals, whose main rationale is to bring mutual benefits to all of its participants (win–win). However, despite the Chinese narratives concerning cooperation with the CEE countries as an economic bridgehead of the “One Road, One Belt” (OBOR) initiative, some signs of the political dimension of the project can be noticed. Since at least the 1950s, active participation and promotion of the South–South cooperation has become an important component of China’s foreign relations. Although for Chinese policy makers Sino–South relations have been traditionally defined within the frame of, mostly postcolonial, developing countries of Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Africa, and Latin America, this article tries to examine the “South–South” pattern of China’s diplomacy towards Central and Eastern European states with a focus on the Czech Republic and Hungary. China as a “spokesman of the weak”: The origins of China’s policy towards the
{"title":"China’s foreign policy towards Central and Eastern Europe: The “16+1” format in the South–South cooperation perspective. Cases of the Czech Republic and Hungary","authors":"Bartosz Kowalski","doi":"10.22261/7R65ZH","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22261/7R65ZH","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the “16+1” format initiated in 2012 as a platform for economic, trade, and cultural cooperation between Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and China. As Chinese authorities claim, the “16+1” initiative is complementary to the “New Silk Road” strategy, being a pragmatic formula without political goals, whose main rationale is to bring mutual benefits to all of its participants (win–win). However, despite the Chinese narratives concerning cooperation with the CEE countries as an economic bridgehead of the “One Road, One Belt” (OBOR) initiative, some signs of the political dimension of the project can be noticed. Since at least the 1950s, active participation and promotion of the South–South cooperation has become an important component of China’s foreign relations. Although for Chinese policy makers Sino–South relations have been traditionally defined within the frame of, mostly postcolonial, developing countries of Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Africa, and Latin America, this article tries to examine the “South–South” pattern of China’s diplomacy towards Central and Eastern European states with a focus on the Czech Republic and Hungary. China as a “spokesman of the weak”: The origins of China’s policy towards the","PeriodicalId":328462,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Eurasian Studies","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123213599","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the 1990s, there was an expectation that Uzbekistan, along with other countries in Central Asia, would gradually move towards the West by distancing itself from the sphere of Russian influence. However, in spite of the West’s significant investment in the region’s economies and attempts to enter the local markets through both bilateral and multilateral channels, this shift never materialised. In fact, since the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Uzbekistan’s trade cooperation with Russia has remained robust, and only in 2014 did China overtook Russia as Uzbekistan’s biggest trading partner. This article aims to understand why Russia and China have become Uzbekistan’s biggest economic partners, especially in the energy sector. To understand this, I believe that it is important to analyse the nature of both domestic and international factors and their interaction. First of all, there are international factors: globalisation, the rise of China and an increase in global demand for natural resources; the role of the China-initiated the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Silk Road Economic Belt; and Russia’s attempt to reclaim its “great power” status since 2000 and Putin’s attempt to build and expand the Eurasian Economic Union. Second, there are domestic factors: understanding Russia’s and China’s foreign trade policy linked not only with economic growth but also with the structure of foreign economic policy decision-making, or “power vertical,” among other domestic elements. This article will draw on Critical International Political Economy (CIPE) to argue that this tradition is well equipped and offers an important framework to understand foreign economic policy of powers such as Russia and China. The CIPE does not simply combine the domestic and international factors but also insists on their indivisibility and engages with cultural, ideological and social elements in their historical contingency.
{"title":"Why have China and Russia become Uzbekistan’s biggest energy partners? Exploring the role of exogenous and endogenous factors","authors":"Oybek Madiyev","doi":"10.22261/QYJ7IT","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22261/QYJ7IT","url":null,"abstract":"In the 1990s, there was an expectation that Uzbekistan, along with other countries in Central Asia, would gradually move towards the West by distancing itself from the sphere of Russian influence. However, in spite of the West’s significant investment in the region’s economies and attempts to enter the local markets through both bilateral and multilateral channels, this shift never materialised. In fact, since the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Uzbekistan’s trade cooperation with Russia has remained robust, and only in 2014 did China overtook Russia as Uzbekistan’s biggest trading partner. This article aims to understand why Russia and China have become Uzbekistan’s biggest economic partners, especially in the energy sector. To understand this, I believe that it is important to analyse the nature of both domestic and international factors and their interaction. First of all, there are international factors: globalisation, the rise of China and an increase in global demand for natural resources; the role of the China-initiated the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Silk Road Economic Belt; and Russia’s attempt to reclaim its “great power” status since 2000 and Putin’s attempt to build and expand the Eurasian Economic Union. Second, there are domestic factors: understanding Russia’s and China’s foreign trade policy linked not only with economic growth but also with the structure of foreign economic policy decision-making, or “power vertical,” among other domestic elements. This article will draw on Critical International Political Economy (CIPE) to argue that this tradition is well equipped and offers an important framework to understand foreign economic policy of powers such as Russia and China. The CIPE does not simply combine the domestic and international factors but also insists on their indivisibility and engages with cultural, ideological and social elements in their historical contingency.","PeriodicalId":328462,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Eurasian Studies","volume":"545 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113982439","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article is focused on the real meaning of the Eurasian Integration Project for East–West relations. The author departs from Sakwa’s treatment of Russian strategy as neo-revisionist. It does not aspire to change the current world order while trying to make the West observe its national interests within the existing framework. This perspective is treated in the article from the standpoint of world-systems analysis. The Eurasian Project is understood as a reaction of the Russian state to the failure of the neoliberal attempt to integrate into the world economy and the international security system. The two great trade mega-unions — the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Partnership — are seen as geoeconomic bolt clamps, which put Russia under enormous pressure. The Russian strategy in the Ukrainian and Syrian crises is designed to find the way out of strategic isolation. The Eurasian Union is expected by the Russian ruling elite to be an important tool to forestall the isolation of the country and secure her economic, military and international security.
{"title":"Russian neo-revisionist strategy and the Eurasian Project","authors":"R. Dzarasov","doi":"10.22261/3P7NAR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22261/3P7NAR","url":null,"abstract":"The article is focused on the real meaning of the Eurasian Integration Project for East–West relations. The author departs from Sakwa’s treatment of Russian strategy as neo-revisionist. It does not aspire to change the current world order while trying to make the West observe its national interests within the existing framework. This perspective is treated in the article from the standpoint of world-systems analysis. The Eurasian Project is understood as a reaction of the Russian state to the failure of the neoliberal attempt to integrate into the world economy and the international security system. The two great trade mega-unions — the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Partnership — are seen as geoeconomic bolt clamps, which put Russia under enormous pressure. The Russian strategy in the Ukrainian and Syrian crises is designed to find the way out of strategic isolation. The Eurasian Union is expected by the Russian ruling elite to be an important tool to forestall the isolation of the country and secure her economic, military and international security.","PeriodicalId":328462,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Eurasian Studies","volume":"22 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130214588","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Symbols are primarily used by diplomatic actors to better project the core ideas behind certain political initiatives. Author defines symbolic violence as a practice, manifested in deliberate action of a given diplomatic actor to damage his adversary’s reputation, status and dignity through a certain set of actions, such as linguistic violence (e.g., insult, intimidation), disobeying diplomatic tact and so forth. This study aims to examine whether it is possible to establish how a change in practice (in the example of Russia–Turkey relations before and after the downing of the Russian fighter plane Su-24) originates, utilising an alternative practice – theoretical toolkit – contradictory framing of the past. To achieve this, the author examines what potentially might cause a change in practice in the Russia–Turkish case and to what extent the potential of social media can be harnessed by governments to shape public opinion and influence diplomatic actors’ international reputation. The methodology employed was based on previous practice and framing studies that have perfected the tools necessary for the detection and analysis of frames. In this research, these tools were employed on 140-character-long tweets. Identifying general themes was achieved through thematic analysis, the method for identifying, analyzing and reporting on patterns, or themes, within data corpus. The paper mentions that both Russia and Turkey attempted to narrate each other’s behaviour through framing one another on Twitter focusing on the legitimacy and morality of each other’s policies to limit the opponent’s ability to carry out the latter’s foreign political prerogatives. Moreover, as the Twitter analysis of the Russian and Turkish framing of one another showed, governments can and do harness the potential of using images and words as the weapons of symbolic violence when they attempt to impose their own narration on a given event or situation. Symbolic domination [...] is something you absorb like air, something you don’t feel pressured by; it is everywhere and nowhere, and to escape from that is very difficult [...] with the mechanism of symbolic violence, domination tends to take the form of a more effective, and in this sense more brutal, means of oppression [...] the violence has become soft, invisible. 1 Terry Eagleton and Pierre Bourdieu, “Doxa and common life,” New Left Review, 1992, 191 (1): 115. Cambridge J. Eurasian Stud. | 2017 | 1: #UZV32B | https://doi.org/10.22261/UZV32B 1 RE T AC TE D
符号主要是外交行为者用来更好地展示某些政治倡议背后的核心思想。作者将象征性暴力定义为一种实践，表现为特定外交行为者通过语言暴力(如侮辱、恐吓)、不服从外交手腕等一系列行为，蓄意损害对手的声誉、地位和尊严。本研究旨在研究是否有可能确定实践中的变化(以俄罗斯战斗机苏-24被击落之前和之后的俄罗斯-土耳其关系为例)是如何产生的，利用另一种实践-理论工具包-过去的矛盾框架。为了实现这一目标，作者研究了可能导致俄罗斯-土耳其案例中实践变化的潜在因素，以及政府可以在多大程度上利用社交媒体的潜力来塑造公众舆论和影响外交行为者的国际声誉。所采用的方法是基于以前的实践和框架研究，这些研究完善了检测和分析框架所需的工具。在这项研究中，这些工具被用于140个字符长的推文。确定一般主题是通过主题分析，即在数据语料库中确定、分析和报告模式或主题的方法来实现的。该论文提到，俄罗斯和土耳其都试图通过在Twitter上互相指责对方的行为，重点关注对方政策的合法性和道德性，以限制对手行使其外交政治特权的能力。此外，正如Twitter上对俄罗斯和土耳其相互陷害的分析所显示的那样，当政府试图将自己的叙述强加于特定事件或情况时，它们可以而且确实利用了将图像和文字作为象征性暴力武器的潜力。象征统治[…]是你像空气一样吸收的东西，你不会感到压力;它无处不在，又无处不在，想要逃离它是非常困难的……在象征暴力的机制下，统治倾向于采取更有效的形式，从这个意义上说，更残酷的压迫手段[…]暴力变得柔和、无形。1特里·伊格尔顿、皮埃尔·布迪厄:《Doxa与共同生活》，《新左派评论》1992年第191期，第115页。剑桥J.欧亚种马。| 2017 | 1: #UZV32B | https://doi.org/10.22261/UZV32B 1 RE T AC TE D
{"title":"The use of digital diplomacy as a tool for symbolic violence: Framing analysis of Russian–Turkish relations on Twitter","authors":"Sherzod D. Arapov","doi":"10.22261/UZV32B","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22261/UZV32B","url":null,"abstract":"Symbols are primarily used by diplomatic actors to better project the core ideas behind certain political initiatives. Author defines symbolic violence as a practice, manifested in deliberate action of a given diplomatic actor to damage his adversary’s reputation, status and dignity through a certain set of actions, such as linguistic violence (e.g., insult, intimidation), disobeying diplomatic tact and so forth. This study aims to examine whether it is possible to establish how a change in practice (in the example of Russia–Turkey relations before and after the downing of the Russian fighter plane Su-24) originates, utilising an alternative practice – theoretical toolkit – contradictory framing of the past. To achieve this, the author examines what potentially might cause a change in practice in the Russia–Turkish case and to what extent the potential of social media can be harnessed by governments to shape public opinion and influence diplomatic actors’ international reputation. The methodology employed was based on previous practice and framing studies that have perfected the tools necessary for the detection and analysis of frames. In this research, these tools were employed on 140-character-long tweets. Identifying general themes was achieved through thematic analysis, the method for identifying, analyzing and reporting on patterns, or themes, within data corpus. The paper mentions that both Russia and Turkey attempted to narrate each other’s behaviour through framing one another on Twitter focusing on the legitimacy and morality of each other’s policies to limit the opponent’s ability to carry out the latter’s foreign political prerogatives. Moreover, as the Twitter analysis of the Russian and Turkish framing of one another showed, governments can and do harness the potential of using images and words as the weapons of symbolic violence when they attempt to impose their own narration on a given event or situation. Symbolic domination [...] is something you absorb like air, something you don’t feel pressured by; it is everywhere and nowhere, and to escape from that is very difficult [...] with the mechanism of symbolic violence, domination tends to take the form of a more effective, and in this sense more brutal, means of oppression [...] the violence has become soft, invisible. 1 Terry Eagleton and Pierre Bourdieu, “Doxa and common life,” New Left Review, 1992, 191 (1): 115. Cambridge J. Eurasian Stud. | 2017 | 1: #UZV32B | https://doi.org/10.22261/UZV32B 1 RE T AC TE D","PeriodicalId":328462,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Eurasian Studies","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122310548","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article charts Iran’s relations with Central Asia following the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. This event gave Iran a new set of neighbours to the north, and this came at a time when Iran was undergoing changes in the direction of its foreign policy from radical idealistic goals, such as the export of the Islamic Revolution, to more pragmatic aims, including giving priority to its own national interests and pursuing good neighbourly relations. Since 1991, Iran has attempted to develop relations towards the Central Asian states, both bilaterally and through various regional fora. Iran’s actions have been based, in part, on a greater commitment to regionalism that has been evident in Iranian foreign policy since the early 1990s. This has focused on cultivating economic, infrastructural and cultural links with the region, rather than any form of ideological crusade, and has helped reduce Iran’s international isolation. Following a historical contextualisation and explanation of the place that the lands of Central Asia hold in the Iranian geopolitical imagination, the article explores the key concerns of Iran in the region. It will examine Iran’s position on what it perceives as being the key issues shaping its Central Asian diplomacy, namely regional economic cooperation, pipeline politics, the status of the Caspian Sea, security cooperation and cultural diplomacy. This provides a revealing case study of how Iran perceives itself as a vital player in the region, seeking to emphasise the benefits of its geostrategic location, relative stability, and increasing international role following the nuclear deal.
{"title":"Central Asia in the Iranian geopolitical imagination","authors":"Edward Wastnidge","doi":"10.22261/1YRJ04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22261/1YRJ04","url":null,"abstract":"This article charts Iran’s relations with Central Asia following the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. This event gave Iran a new set of neighbours to the north, and this came at a time when Iran was undergoing changes in the direction of its foreign policy from radical idealistic goals, such as the export of the Islamic Revolution, to more pragmatic aims, including giving priority to its own national interests and pursuing good neighbourly relations. Since 1991, Iran has attempted to develop relations towards the Central Asian states, both bilaterally and through various regional fora. Iran’s actions have been based, in part, on a greater commitment to regionalism that has been evident in Iranian foreign policy since the early 1990s. This has focused on cultivating economic, infrastructural and cultural links with the region, rather than any form of ideological crusade, and has helped reduce Iran’s international isolation. Following a historical contextualisation and explanation of the place that the lands of Central Asia hold in the Iranian geopolitical imagination, the article explores the key concerns of Iran in the region. It will examine Iran’s position on what it perceives as being the key issues shaping its Central Asian diplomacy, namely regional economic cooperation, pipeline politics, the status of the Caspian Sea, security cooperation and cultural diplomacy. This provides a revealing case study of how Iran perceives itself as a vital player in the region, seeking to emphasise the benefits of its geostrategic location, relative stability, and increasing international role following the nuclear deal.","PeriodicalId":328462,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Eurasian Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130858439","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：