{"title":"中亚的外部行为者:多边合作机制","authors":"S. Zhiltsov","doi":"10.37178/ca-c.21.3.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The highly favorable geographic location and rich natural resources are the main attractions of post-Soviet Central Asia. After the disintegration of the U.S.S.R, it became clear that different actors operated differently in this strategically important region. This area occupied different places in their strategies, and their goals were realized using different instruments. Regional disunity (Central Asian states then failed to tune up multilateral cooperation) brought grist to the mill of extra-regional players. Mutual political claims and personal ambitions of the regional leaders made it hard or even impossible to initiate common regional projects. Local contradictions in the water and energy sphere became a serious obstacle on the road towards political interaction when dealing with regional problems, environmental protection being one of them. In short, at that time, Central Asian countries did not yet master the art of pushing aside disagreements and problems for the sake of positive actions. Extra-regional actors capitalized on this fact without reservations. The U.S., the EU, Russia, China, India, Japan, and Turkey proceeded from their long-term interests when they tried to impose their political agenda on the local states and draw them into the sphere of their economic interests. Apparently, they preferred bilateral agreements with each of the Central Asian states, since their importance for each of the external players depended on their economic development, geopolitical significance and natural resources that they possessed. In recent years, the extra-regional states have revised and readjusted their Central Asian politics. Today, they prefer multilateral relations; in some cases, this format has been used for a long time, while other extra-regional countries have only recently employed the “5 + an extra-regional actor” format. Turkey and Japan are two leaders in this respect: they were the first to suggest this format, and others followed suit. Many countries limit their multilateral formats to the foreign minister level and, therefore, to declarations and joint statements. Regional states prefer this format, which allows them to balance out external players and address their own problems. Predictably, Central Asian countries are ready to be involved in multilateral formats.","PeriodicalId":53489,"journal":{"name":"Central Asia and the Caucasus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EXTERNAL ACTORS IN CENTRAL ASIA: MULTILATERAL COOPERATION MECHANISMS\",\"authors\":\"S. Zhiltsov\",\"doi\":\"10.37178/ca-c.21.3.02\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The highly favorable geographic location and rich natural resources are the main attractions of post-Soviet Central Asia. After the disintegration of the U.S.S.R, it became clear that different actors operated differently in this strategically important region. This area occupied different places in their strategies, and their goals were realized using different instruments. Regional disunity (Central Asian states then failed to tune up multilateral cooperation) brought grist to the mill of extra-regional players. Mutual political claims and personal ambitions of the regional leaders made it hard or even impossible to initiate common regional projects. Local contradictions in the water and energy sphere became a serious obstacle on the road towards political interaction when dealing with regional problems, environmental protection being one of them. In short, at that time, Central Asian countries did not yet master the art of pushing aside disagreements and problems for the sake of positive actions. Extra-regional actors capitalized on this fact without reservations. The U.S., the EU, Russia, China, India, Japan, and Turkey proceeded from their long-term interests when they tried to impose their political agenda on the local states and draw them into the sphere of their economic interests. Apparently, they preferred bilateral agreements with each of the Central Asian states, since their importance for each of the external players depended on their economic development, geopolitical significance and natural resources that they possessed. In recent years, the extra-regional states have revised and readjusted their Central Asian politics. Today, they prefer multilateral relations; in some cases, this format has been used for a long time, while other extra-regional countries have only recently employed the “5 + an extra-regional actor” format. Turkey and Japan are two leaders in this respect: they were the first to suggest this format, and others followed suit. Many countries limit their multilateral formats to the foreign minister level and, therefore, to declarations and joint statements. Regional states prefer this format, which allows them to balance out external players and address their own problems. Predictably, Central Asian countries are ready to be involved in multilateral formats.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53489,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central Asia and the Caucasus\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central Asia and the Caucasus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37178/ca-c.21.3.02\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central Asia and the Caucasus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37178/ca-c.21.3.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
EXTERNAL ACTORS IN CENTRAL ASIA: MULTILATERAL COOPERATION MECHANISMS
The highly favorable geographic location and rich natural resources are the main attractions of post-Soviet Central Asia. After the disintegration of the U.S.S.R, it became clear that different actors operated differently in this strategically important region. This area occupied different places in their strategies, and their goals were realized using different instruments. Regional disunity (Central Asian states then failed to tune up multilateral cooperation) brought grist to the mill of extra-regional players. Mutual political claims and personal ambitions of the regional leaders made it hard or even impossible to initiate common regional projects. Local contradictions in the water and energy sphere became a serious obstacle on the road towards political interaction when dealing with regional problems, environmental protection being one of them. In short, at that time, Central Asian countries did not yet master the art of pushing aside disagreements and problems for the sake of positive actions. Extra-regional actors capitalized on this fact without reservations. The U.S., the EU, Russia, China, India, Japan, and Turkey proceeded from their long-term interests when they tried to impose their political agenda on the local states and draw them into the sphere of their economic interests. Apparently, they preferred bilateral agreements with each of the Central Asian states, since their importance for each of the external players depended on their economic development, geopolitical significance and natural resources that they possessed. In recent years, the extra-regional states have revised and readjusted their Central Asian politics. Today, they prefer multilateral relations; in some cases, this format has been used for a long time, while other extra-regional countries have only recently employed the “5 + an extra-regional actor” format. Turkey and Japan are two leaders in this respect: they were the first to suggest this format, and others followed suit. Many countries limit their multilateral formats to the foreign minister level and, therefore, to declarations and joint statements. Regional states prefer this format, which allows them to balance out external players and address their own problems. Predictably, Central Asian countries are ready to be involved in multilateral formats.