Abstract
The term Eurasia is a contentious and illusive one and there is no consensus or agreement among authors on its meanings, implications and ramifications. President Nursultan Nazarbayev of the Republic of Kazakhstan introduced and developed his own vision, policies, perceptions and values of Eurasianism which he has been propagating and practicing on a continuous and consistent basis. In fact, the concept of Eurasianism and Eurasian policies have turned into state ideologies which are reflected in domestic, regional and foreign policies as well as in the foundation of the recent regional integration process. The purpose of the article is: to study and review the genesis of the old, popular as well as contemporary schools and thoughts of Eurasianism, their underlying goals, objectives and purposes in order to locate and understand Kazakhstan's views and concepts of Eurasianism in a broad historical and comparative perspectives; to review and critically analyze how President Nazarbayev's visions and policies of Eurasianism are reflected in the country's domestic, regional and foreign policies and what are their implications.
Introduction
The term ‘Eurasia’ is rooted in the classical theories and concepts of ‘Geo-politics’ particularly the concepts of ‘pivot’ and later ‘heartland’ defined and developed by British Geographer Sir Hartford Mackinder in 1904, where he identified the huge landmass of the east of Urals as the ‘pivot’ and claimed that whoever will control this vast territory control global politics (Mackinder, 1904, 421–444). Eurasia is a highly debated, contested and illusive term with different meanings and perceptions in time and space. It has two apparent meanings and dimensions: geographical and politico-philosophical-ideological; where the first one deals with space and location meaning Eurasia is a place (space) which is located both in Asia and Europe; the other is more complex and complicated with multiple views and perceptions, often conflicting and contradictory, probably with one common feature that the concept of Eurasia first emerged and evolved in imperial Russia (Isaev 1991; Ivanov, Polikov, Tugashev, & Shishin, 2007; Schmidt 2005; Sengupta, 2009).
The term ‘Eurasianism’ is more of a politico-ideological and philosophical concept and understanding with multi-dimensional features and aspects that emerged and re-emerged in various historical stages by philosophers, historians, nationalists, communists as well as individual groups and leaders for pursuing their respective goals and aspirations (Brzezinski, 1998; Shrielman 2009). The Russian geopolitical concept of Eurasianism, with all its changes and modifications, is still very powerful, dominant and alive in historic-cultural, academic, as well as national political and ideological debates and discourse. 1 Turkish Eurasianism is mainly an idea and vision of creating a commonwealth of Turkic states inhabited by Turkish peoples including parts of Russia and Central Asia. Kazakhstan's vision of Eurasianism and creation of the Eurasian Union based on Eurasian solidarity is an official policy (ideology) developed, launched and being implemented by Nursultan Nazarbayev, the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan that fundamentally differs from those of Russian, Turkish and others forms in terms of underlying goals, objectives, methods, directions and mechanisms of implementation.
Among the classical Russian Eursianists, Pytor Chaadev, Vasily Tatishchev, Nikolai Danilevsky, Alexander Pompiansky are the most important ones. For details, see Mathew Schmidt, “Is Putin Pursuing a Policy of Eurasianism?” www.findarticles.com/p/articles//mi_qa3996/is_200501/ai_n13640828.
The purpose of the article is to briefly define the concepts of Eurasia and Eurasianism, its various forms, debates, interpretations and directions, overtime changes, evolutions and current policy debates and discussions. The main concentration is on Kazakhstan's vision of Eurasianism, its evolution and differentiation, nature, characteristics, implications and reflections on the country's domestic, regional and global politics in building a peaceful harmonies nation as well as balancing and maintaining a multivector foreign policy. The article raises and critically analyzes the challenges and difficulties of Kazakhstan's Eurasian policies, particularly in relations with neighboring and regional countries. The conclusion will succinctly summarize the potential benefits and advantages of President Nazarbayev's Eurasian policy.
The literature in the field is huge and multidimensional and it is not easy to divide or classify them into various categories. However, for the purpose of review and analysis, the author has divided them into the following broad categories:
First, the classical and neo-classical writers of Geo-politics and the concepts of Eurasia and Eurasianism who were mainly European and Russian origins and their primary focus was on geo-political, strategic and security interests of Russia as a ‘pivotal’ state of Eurasia. Author like, Hartford Mackinder, Pytor Chaadev, Vasily Tatishchev, Nikolai Danilevsky, Alexander Pompiansky, Nikolai Trubetskoi, Peter Savitskiy, Nikolai Alekseev, Issaev, Longworth, Leonid Gimilev, Mark Bassin and Alexander Dugin can be classified into this category. They emphasized the importance of the Eurasian landmass as the pivotal of the world and since Russia is located in the center, it has the natural right and power to control and play dominant role in Eurasia. One of their main claims was that Russia is neither a European nor an Asian country rather a Eurasian one and it must protect, preserve and promote its identity accordingly.
Second, in this category of literature, we can include the wide varieties of authors who wrote about other types and forms of Eurasia and Eurasianism often challenging and contradicting the Russian centric views and perceptions claiming that Russia is at the center of Eurasia and that very geographical fact gives it special role and privilege to claim the leadership position but it is not the only Eurasian state. These are mainly authors from Central Asian and Caucasian origins. Authors like, Osmanov, Simavoryan, Matikeeva, Sengupta, Tolipov, Shrielman, Ivanov and others can be classified into this category who claim, at various levels, that the Center of Eurasia can be in China, greater Central Asia or in the Caucasus. They do not have any single or cohesive theory or concept of Eurasianism rather challenge the notion that Russia is the center of Eurasia and argue that the concept is disputed and divisive.
Third, in the third group of literature we can include the authors and writers of Kazakhstani Eurasianism where President Nursultan Nazarbayev seems to be the main advocate and proponent of creating a Eurasian Union based on the common economic, political and security interests of the Eurasian states. In his numerous books, monographs, articles and memoirs, he elaborated his detailed policy perceptions, arguments and roadmaps for creating and implementing the policies of Eurasianism. Other authors, mainly Kazakhstani ones, like Sultanov, Laumulin, Shakenova, Tokaev, Nyssanbaev, Tulepbergenova, Baipakova, Gulyamova, Sidorovich and Qoraboyev generally support the above view.
In the fourth group of literature we can include the recent official documents, speeches and articles published by the Presidents of Kazakhstan, Russia and Belarus regarding the various issues and aspects of the creation of the Customs Union and its gradual progression to a Eurasian Union which are mainly considered as more of policy papers and documents rather than serious academic and research materials.
In the final group of literature, we can include the authors (mainly foreign) who criticize the concepts of Eurasia and Eurasianism from various points of views and perspectives and cast doubts and suspicions about the success of the proposed Eurasian Union. Authors like, Laruelle, Gleason, Shlapentokh, Cutler, Weitz, Bohr, Masanov, Schmidt and others can be included into this category.
Russian Eurasianism
The Russian concept of Eurasianism started as a philosophical and political movement at the beginning of the XX century developed by Russian intellectuals who emigrated after the Communist revolution in 1917 (Trubetskoi, Savitskiy, Alekseev & Longworth, 2005). The Russian pan-Eurasian nationalists were worried about the disintegration of the Eurasian common culture, language (Russian) and values and wanted to stop the potential threats of emerging regional identities (pan-Islamism, pan-Turkism, pan-Asianism and so on) in order to keep and promote an all-Eurasian identity that could unite all peoples in Russia and its periphery in a single entity. Eurasianism was born as a reaction to the Russian Revolution and the Bolsheviks’ coming to power. Interestingly, classical Russian Eurasianists were against both the Tsarist (imperial) and communist rules because; for them both were European products. Russia was not considered as a national state rather a unique form of civilization that contained diverse cultures juxtaposed by the nomadic Turkic heritage and that of the Orthodox traditionalists who believed that the Russian culture can only be protected by opposing to the Western culture through the policy of Eurasianism. It was strongly believed and asserted that Russia is more closely associated with its eastern neighbors and was a part of Mongol Empire before the “Europeanization” (Masanov & Chebotarev, 2000). The notion of Eurasianism emerged as a savior of geographical, ethnical and cultural integration and identity as Russia was afraid of being divided into two parts – Asia and Europe—instead it wanted to be seen as a state that combined both Asian and European culture and heritage (Keizer, 1998). Kolchigin (quoted in Nyssanbayev & Dunaev, 2010) pinpoints five aspects of “Eurasianism’: a) it is an idea of cultural dialog between Europe and Asia, b) it is the definition of the super ethnic collectivity; c) it is a both ideological and political movement of the 1920s of the 20th century; d) it is an idea of regional integration in the Eurasian territory; e) it is put forward in opposing to the encroachment of western civilization for the sake of the establishment of the Russian World Empire.
Despite the heavy handed practice of Marxist–Leninist ideology, Soviet communism was apparently not in conflict or contradiction with the concept of Eurasianism rather it was used to conquer and consolidate Russian power and its influence and hegemony in the bordering areas. Russian Eurasianists enthusiastically endorsed and supported the creation of the Soviet Union that forcefully integrated the Central Asian and Caucasian regions and turned into a Soviet Eurasian Empire. According to Leonid Gumilev (1970), one of the most influential proponents of Eurasian concept, Russian Eurasianism is based on the argument that geographically Russia is located both in Europe and Asia and it has both Asian and European elements in terms of people, religion and geography. It was believed that geographically, culturally, linguistically, religiously, psychologically as well as from national, ideological and philosophical contexts Russia is closer to Asia and shares many of the Asian cultures and mentalities than those of Europe. He also believed that Russia is the center of the ‘old world’ not only in cultural and historical sense but also in politico-economic and geographic terms and it occupies a special place in Eurasian geo-political space whose main mission, as a central power, is to balance interests between Asia and Europe. Some ultra-nationalists believe and argue that Eurasianism shares common spiritual unity among Islamic, Buddhist and Orthodox nations based on collective unity and ideal government (Schmidt, 2005). During the
With the demise of the USSR, the Russian Eurasian concept and ideology did not disappear rather invigorate and got new impetus and support from Russian nationalists who advocated for hard-line, aggressive policies toward Central Asia and southern Caucasus. Alexander Dugin, a popular nationalist Russian philosopher with anti-western and anti-global views and perceptions, leads the Neo-Eurasian movement in Russia and he is closely associated with the political and military establishments in contemporary Russia who also strongly believes and propagates that ‘a confrontation between the West and Eurasia is inevitable’ (Shlapentokh, 2001). Dugin's Neo-Eurasianism is primarily imperialistic and anti-democratic whose goal is to create an empire in the post-Soviet space led by Russia and for that matter a Moscow–Astana–Kiev geopolitical triangle is important and imperative for guaranteeing the stability of the Eurasian zone headed by Russia (Dugin, 1999; Laurelle, 2004; Schmidt, 2005). Nartov (2007) divides the Neo-Eurasianist trends in Russia into three categories; first the extreme rightist expansionists; second those who emphasize on culture, language, folklore, Slavic-Turkic alliance, and third, the defenders of the concept of ‘empire’ to be built on the continental space with the focus on economic integration by a special type of statehood based on diversity and freedom of language, culture and ethnicity. While, Andrei Tsygankov (2003) believes that there are five groups in Russian Eurasianists – expansionists, civilizationists, stabilizers, geo-economists and westerners – and all have different views, perceptions and orientations. Westerners believe that Russia shares more common historical, religious and cultural elements with Europe than those with Asia and argue that the future of Russia lies with the West/Europe. They are convinced that Russian modernists, business elites and bureaucrats will never be ready to sacrifice their cozy, lavish, luxurious Western way of living for the sake of communist/nationalist/expansionist causes of Eurasianism (Shlapentokh, 2001; Utkin, 2003). Trenin (2002) notes that Russia may play a stronger role and have a place in the West as the West is in economic trouble and Europe is getting weaker institutionally, economically and becoming more dependent on Russian energy resources.
Russian Neo-Eurasianists also challenge the concept of Altantism claiming that it is not based on the idea of universalism rather on Westernization that combines two cultures and civilizations – American and European – which are fundamentally the same. On the same ground, they reject the models of dividing the world into North-South, East-West or Center-periphery. Proponents of this school disagree with the Francis Fukuyama's concept of the ‘End of History’, challenge the notion of globalization and insist that Eurasianism in the XXI century is a better alternative to both Altantism and globalism. For them, Neo-Eurasianism, unlike globalism, provides a living space for everyone and defends and promotes language, culture, religion and civilizations of all geographical areas including Africa and Asia-Pacific. Eurasian world view neither contradicts any national ideas whether it is Russian, Mongolian, Ukrainian or Kazakh nor it is against any ethnicity, nationality, religion or political institutions and organizations rather stands against any nationalistic, ethno-centrist, religious fanatic of imperial motives. Some Neo-Eurasianists propose to create a union based on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) consisting of major Asian countries like Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan with a future potential of India, Mongolia and Iran joining in it and thus having a strong powerful strategic Eurasian Union which can be the center of world development (Ivanov et al., 2007, 327–345). Some advocate that the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) should be replaced by the Eurasian Union and others go even further and insist that Moscow should improve relations with the continental Muslim countries, like Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to expand the boundary of Eurasia all the way to the Indian Ocean.
Russian Neo-Eurasianists enthusiastically supported Vladimir Putin's accession to power in Russia in early 2000 and his strong policy toward Georgia and other South Caucasian states and viewed it as the ‘policy of Eurasianism in action’. Putin's statement of ‘Russia always felt itself a Eurasian country’ at the APEC Summit in 2001 was considered by the Neo-Eurasianists as an official declaration of Russia's Eurasian policy at a global forum (Putin, 2011). They are delighted with Putin's return to power in 2012 and believe that the Eurasian project is close to his heart and it will be the centerpiece of his foreign policy (Buckley, 2011a). Putin's vision of Eurasian Union is a grand project that envisions a unity of all former Soviet states to compete with the EU and China. In his words, “We are proposing a model of a powerful, supranational association capable of becoming one of the poles of the modern world ……to play an effective bridge role between Europe and the dynamic Asia-Pacific Region,” (Putin, 2011). He called to all former Soviet republics to join the ‘Eurasian Union’ and the recently created Customs Union (CU) between Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus which is considered to be the first step toward the creation of a full ‘Eurasian Union’ by 2015 (Buckley, 2011b; Nazarbayev, 2003a; 2011). Although Kazakhstan and Belarus welcomed and endorsed Putin's call and joined the union but with caution and their own plans, other Post-Soviet states particularly Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Azerbaijan are looking toward Europe and are less interested in joining the CU because of their past history and experiences of relations with Moscow.
Turkish Eurasianism
In the Turkish intellectual and academic debates, Eurasia is considered of those areas and regions where mainly the Turkic peoples are settled including the areas of modern day Turkey, the Balkans, part of the former USSR, Central Asia, the regions of Volga and Afghanistan (Sengupta, 2009, 21). Turkish Eurasianism is mainly a plan of creating commonwealth of Turkic states and the idea was more active and popular during the early 1990s after the collapse of the USSR when the five independent Central Asian states were created who have close links with Turkey (except Tajikistan); historically, culturally and ethno-linguistically (Hamm, 2006). The Turkic-Muslim understanding of Eurasianism is propagated and supported by the Turkic-Muslim populations in Russia who believe that they truly embody Eurasia and Russia can only become a Eurasian power by recognizing its Muslim populations. But it is mainly limited in academic and intellectual debate and discussion rather than a policy option or action plan. Observers believe that as Kazakhstan, the most stable and resourceful country in Central Asia is actively pursuing the policy of Eurasianism and taking concrete steps and measures in expanding and promoting it, there will be hardly any scope and support for a separate Eurasianism based on the solidarity of Turkic-Muslim ideology. Turkey may gain more by joining and supporting Kazakhstan's efforts and policies. Moreover, the Turkish version of “Eurasianism” is not homogenous; it embraces several approaches depending on the positions of different parties. One popular view is that the creation of a Eurasian Union will provide more opportunities for regional economic cooperation (e.g. Baku–Tbilisi–Kars railway should become interlink connecting the central and east Asia). Some belief that a well organized Eurasian Union can be a balance to the European Union where Turkey has been trying to become a member for the last 20 years. There is a third trend that focuses on creating a Union of Turkic Speaking nations and not a common Eurasian Union.
Other forms of Eurasianism
The concept of ‘Muslim Eurasia’ is mainly developed by South Caucasian and Turkish authors that comprises Muslim majority countries and territories in Central Asia and Southern Caucasus which are not based on religiosity or political ideology rather on secular, social-normative and cultural values and traditions and the new identity can function as a catalyst for peace, stability and harmony and easily replace the old Soviet norms, values and culture. But it is very unlikely that any union, integration or cooperation based on a common religion will be acceptable by Central Asian states as they are secular, multi-ethnic and multi-religious. Matikeeva (2005) and Tolipov (2003) argue that Central Asia should not be subordinated and covered by the ‘Heartland’ claimed by Russia, rather it can be the ‘Heartland’ by itself along with China and they propose their own version of regional Central Asian Eurasianism. A group of geo-political Eurasianists, mainly based in Azerbaijan and Southern Caucasian region, emphasize the role and importance of the Caspian Sea and claim that the Caspian zone is the center of Eurasia where there is the junction of three great civilizations; Turkic, Slavic and Aryan-Iranian and two world religions; Islam and Christianity (Shrielman, 2009, 72). They demand that they are the ones who hold back the tides of ‘Atlantic civilization’ and thus saved and protected the area from European–Christian expansion (Usmanov, 1997, 378–379).
There is also an attempt to create a Eurasian Ecological-Economic Union in the so called ‘great Altai’ region that claimed to be located in the center of the Eurasian continent and in the trajectory of four great civilizations; Russian, Chinese, Mongolian and Kazakh. The argument is that all world religions and Eurasian ethnic groups and sects live peacefully in the Altai and at the same time the area is full of natural resources and pure water. In 2002 an International Consultative Council (MKC) was created that organizes and conducts seminars and conferences on a regular basis and seeks support from regional governments for their cause (Ivanov et al., 2007, 226–230). As the idea involves territories of several sovereign states there is hardly any possibility that a separate union will be successful.
Then there is the debate of ‘Economic Eurasianism’ by those who believe that close economic and trade relations among post-Soviet countries on the basis of economic integration will benefit all the member states as they share common interests and historically their economies are dependent and closely linked and connected with each other and as a result they face serious challenges of modernization and competitiveness in international markets. But the question is; whether a successful integration in trade and economy can be created without political supports and goodwill.
Analyzing the various forms and types of Eurasianism Mark Bassin (2002) noted that all have two common elements; some synthesis of European and Asian principles and modern Eurasianism claims to be legitimate heir of the classical legacy. In Russia, it is about balancing against the West and sharing of a common economic, geographic and cultural space with other former Soviet states. Being Eurasian means something different, special and superior than those of either Asians (associated with such negative stereotypes as underdevelopment, illiteracy, radicalism, fundamentalism, terrorism, violence and so on) or Europeans who share the history of ‘dark ages’, colonialism, exploitation, two word wars and human degradation. But modernists and others believe that the emergence of Neo-Eurasianism in Russia is a mere reflection of frustration of not being able to be developed and modernized enough to be accepted as equal partner in Europe while not finding an appropriate role and place is emerging Asia.
Kazakhstan's policy of Eurasianism
For Kazakhstan, Eurasia is a unique region where all ethnic, cultural and religions groups live and co-exist peacefully through centuries of mutual trust, belief and understanding. The concept of space and geography is an important factor in planning and determining a nation's foreign policy goals, objectives and directions and it is more so for Kazakhstan; a vast, resourceful but landlocked country. Geographically, Kazakhstan is an Asian country and only about 10% of its territory is located in Europe but geo-politically, geo-economically and geo-historically it considers itself as a Eurasian state. During the early 1990s the leadership of Kazakhstan proposed the concept of Eurasia which was based on the principle that Kazakhstan is located both in Asia and Europe and plays the role of a ‘bridge between Asia and Europe’. Kazakhstan's Eurasianism is promulgated as an official ideology by the top leadership of the country and the focus was to build peace, solidarity and unity among peoples on the basis of morality, spirituality, cultural and historical interactions of peoples of different ethno-linguistic, cultural and religious backgrounds. As Nyssanbayev and Dunaev (2010) argue that all these historical events and circumstances helped to create an objective, congenial atmosphere and foundation for the creation of a strong integration process. President Nursultan Nazarbayev first proposed his vision of Eurasianism in his speech at the Moscow State University in Spring 1994 which he developed systematically and proposed as a series of projects including the creation of a Eurasian Union. He further elaborated his vision of Eurasianism in 1995 in one of his books when said if one looks at a geography then it is easy to notice that there is a consecutive vertical row of countries of Eurasia from Russia in the north to India in the South that does not yet link either with the east or with the west. This continuous belt of countries situated along the meridian of the center of Eurasia the ‘belt of anticipation’. Despite all the differences among these countries they constitute a relatively solid group from the point of view of potential resources and possibilities of influencing not only the balance of power in Asia or Eurasia but even the geopolitical balance of the world (quoted in Sengupta, 2009, 24). His strong drive and motivation for creating the Eurasian Union can also be explained by such geographical factor as Kazakhstan's landmass strides between Asia and Europe and contending claims and counter-claims on the country's real identity and belongingness. In Nazarbayev's own words;
There are individuals who likes to make a link between Kazakhstan and Europe; and there are those who also like to see Kazakhstan to be in close tie with the Asian ‘Tigers;’ still there others who want to consider Russia as our strategic partner, while suggesting not to ignore the Turkish model for development. Paradoxically, they are right in their own way, since they have felt the issue from different angles. In reality, Kazakhstan, as a Eurasian state that has its own history and its own future, would have a completely different path to travel down the road. Our model for development will not resemble other countries; it will include in itself the achievements from different civilizations (Eurasianism in the 21st century, anonym, 2009).
The above statement explains the President's visions and policies on Eurasianism which he further elaborated in later speeches and articles. For him, Kazakhstan is located in the “epicenter of the world” and its new capital, Astana, situated in the “heart of Eurasia” and this view is widely shared by Kazakh scholars, academics and intellectuals and it has been incorporated into the culture and educational programs (Shrielman 2009, 71). In one of his books President Nazarbayev (2003a, 117–144) outlined the importance of building a united Kazakhstani culture on the basis of multi-ethnicity by building bridges among cultures of different national, ethnic and religious groups. Kamal Burhanov, a political scientist, supports the view and writes that Kazakhstan is a community of different nationalities, not a new ethnic community and an example of how inter-ethnic and inter-religious harmony can be achieved (Kazakhstanskaya, 2011). Oljas Suleimenov a well-known Kazakh poet and writer, believes that independent Kazakhstan illustrates the principles of a multiethnic, tolerant, and diverse country typically characteristic to Eurasia. He argues that the titular Kazakhs can no longer define their identity without taking into account of the European borrowings that has given them an access to world advanced culture at large (Ram, 2001).
President Nazarbayev described the principles of his vision of Eurasianism in an article in the Russian Newspaper
In the same article he elaborated the main characteristics of the Union: (1) the Eurasian Union must be a competitor in global economic space, (2) it must be developed as a part of the Europe Atlantic and Asian areas of development and economically it should be a bridge between the dynamic developments in the EU, East, South-East and South Asia, (3) the Eurasian Union should be formed as a self-sufficient financial body which will be a part of the new global financial system, (4) geo-economically and geo-politically the Eurasian integration should follow a special, evolutionary and voluntary path in future, (5) such a Union can only be achieved through wide participation and supports of the society (Nazarbayev, 2003b; 2011, 11–12).
It is not surprising or accidental that Kazakhstan proposed its own vision of Eurasianism and placed it in the official parlance to formulate foreign and domestic policies accordingly. Kazakhstan is the largest (by territory), richest and ethnically most divergent but stable and peaceful country in Central Asia 2 which is always interested in maintaining and developing closer relations with the former Soviet Republics. Kazakhstan claims that it is unique and it's European and Asian roots are interwoven and the combination of different cultures and traditions allows it to take the best from both the European and Asian traditions (Nazarbayev, 1997; 2003c). Regis Gente (2010) believes that the concept of Eurasianism came to Kazakhstan as response to a historical preoccupation with Russian influence in the region, and internationally it serves as a policy doctrine in molding Kazakhstan's geopolitical ambitions and foreign policy goals and objectives. The Eurasian philosophy justifies Kazakhstan's ties with the West (USA, the EU and other European countries), Asia and the Middle East. As mentioned earlier, Kazakhstan wants to see itself as a bridge between Asia and Europe and pursue an active foreign policy through the membership and participation in the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Conference of Interaction and Confidence-building Measures in Asia (CICA), the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Custom's Union and so on. Through an active Eurasian policy of engagement, Kazakhstan intends to turn the ‘curse’ of geography into strength and advantage by maintaining and balancing relations with all major actors in the world (Olcott, 2002).
The territory of Kazakhstan is 2.7 million square km which is more than twice the territories of other four countries (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) combined (2.7 million square km). Similarly, the approximate GDP of Kazakhstan in 2010 was about 130 billion US dollars (with an average per capita income of more than 11,000 dollars) while the combined GDP of other four Central Asian states was about 76 billion US dollars with an average per capita GDP income of 3422 dollars.
Despite all attempts to prove and justify that Kazakhstan's policy of Eurasianism is an objective, neutral and positive category with no inherent contradictions that serves interests of all stakeholders; both internal and external, there are skeptics for whom Eurasianism in Kazakhstan is a state oriented nationalism. M. Laruelle, a French expert on Central Asia, claims that the concept of “Eurasianism” from a Kazakh stand is a hidden form of nationalism (2004, 187) and she provides numerous examples of state language and other policies in support of her argument.
One of the major problems of Kazakhstani version of Eurasianism is that despite all attempts by President Nazarbayev, his supporters and research and academic institutions the concept of Eurasianism is not yet clearly defined and understood by the public at large with the full picture and implications of the issue. The Government may have steered the concept to its advantage with respect to legitimization of state's certain policies which has given rise to various interpretations of the phenomenon. Another strong criticism, mainly comes from intellectuals, is that since Gumilev's studies of Eurasianism no serious progress or theoretical study and research has been done or analytical and methodological frameworks have been developed on the issue rather the focus is more on other sub-ordinate subjects like bridge concept and so on.
Kazakhstan's Eurasian policy is designed to serve multiple goals and purposes; externally to improve relations with Russia and other regional countries based on Eurasian solidarity, balancing relations with Asia and Europe by playing the role of a ‘bridge between Asia and Europe’ and claiming as a bastion of peace, stability and neutrality, and domestically to create a successful multi-ethnic, multi-national peaceful and harmonious nation with stability and harmony.
Kazakhstan is a multi-ethnic, multi-faith and multi-confessional state where peoples from all origins live in peace and harmony. There are more than 140 national and ethnic groups with 46 faiths and confessions where the Kazakhs are the majority (58.9%) followed by the Russians (25.9%), Ukrainians (2.9%), Uzbeks (2.8%), Uyghur, Tatars and Germans. 3 Immediately after independence Kazakhstan was worried and concerned about potential Russian interventions and territorial ambitions, particularly in those areas where the population was predominantly ethnic Russian and it further aggravated by repeated comments and slogans by some radical Russian leaders, nationalists and extremists. So, one of the most important goals and objectives of the Eurasian policy was to cooperate and consolidate relations with Moscow and at the same time to promote and practice policies of national unity, cohesion, harmony and understanding among various national, ethnic, cultural and faith communities. Article 14 of the Constitution of Kazakhstan confirms that nobody will be discriminated “for reasons of origin, social, property status, occupation, sex, race, nationality, language, and attitude toward religion, convictions, place of residence or any other circumstances”. In order to maintain social stability and religious harmony, the Constitution also prohibits the formation and activities of any social and political organizations that undermine “the security of the state, including social, racial, national, religious, class and tribal enmity” (Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 1995). An Assembly of the People of Kazakhstan was created by President Nazarbayev in 1995 by bringing together more than 800 ethnic and cultural associations who elect 9 members to the Majilis [lower house of parliament in Kazakhstan] (Bowyer, 2008, 50–63). Kazakhstan is also holding inter-faith, inter-religious, inter-ethnic and inter-civilization dialog on a regular basis by bringing together representatives of different civilizations, ethnic groups, religions sects and beliefs. The National Unity Doctrine, initiated in October 2008 and adapted in May 2010, is designed to reflect the common ideals consolidating all citizens of the country into a single nation and to create a cohesive, united nation based on ethnic, religious, national and other socio-cultural harmony and peace (Kulshmanov, 2009).
For details, see Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the USA; http://www.kazakhembus.com/index.php?page=ethnic-groups.
Kazakhstan's policy of Eurasianism is not simply an abstract concept but it is reflected and very much alive and visible in all aspects of social, economic and political life. One of the most well-known public universities in Kazakhstan is named as ‘Eurasia University’, the Eurasian Bank and other multiple social political and cultural organizations and institutions bearing the name of Eurasia – are operating in the country and focusing on the issues and aspects of Eurasian space. Press and media, both printing and electronic, are feeding back the concepts, ideas and perceptions of Eurasianism on a continuous basis and helping to mold social learning and consciousness in the spirits of Eurasianism. Research institutions, academics, intellectuals, political leaders and government officials are actively involved in supporting, publicizing, propagating and justifying the needs and importance of the policy of Eurasianism for Kazakhstan through their research, publications, public relations and policy statements. Numerous seminars, conferences, discussions, debates and round-tables are organized on a regular basis with participations of local and foreign leaders, policy planners and specialists. In fact, the Eurasian University in Astana serves as a center for research, debates and discussions and publishes books and materials on Eurasianism. The Eurasian Media Forum is one the most powerful and strong media forum in the CIS aimed at defining the strategic role of Eurasia in world affairs, exploring a new approach to international relations, promoting equality of access to reliable public information throughout the area and encouraging the highest standards of journalism. 4
For details, see http://www.eamedia.org/2010/642.
To sum up, Eurasianism in internal affairs of Kazakhstan means promotion of Eurasian policies and values, like tolerance and respect of traditions and cultures of all peoples living in the state. Kazakhs and Russians are the two dominant ethnic groups who live in peace and comfort and the policy of Eurasianism helps to foster national unity, stability and peace. A policy of multilingualism is in place where Kazakh is the state language while Russian is the official language for inter-ethnic communications. Kazakhstan, as a nation, is very proud of its values, customs, religion and traditions rooted in Eurasianism that blends and combines both Asian and European culture and traditions and thus makes it an ideal model for peace, stability and nation-building for other multi-national states.
Central Asia
Since independence Kazakhstan has pursued a policy of economic cooperation and political accommodation vis-à-vis its policy toward other Central Asian states although they were never considered as strategically important at the level of Russia or China. Nevertheless, a number of initiatives were taken by Astana in order to create some forms of economic integration on the regional basis most of which were either failed or made very slow progress. One of the first attempts was to create the Free Trade Zone in the Eurasian space consisting of Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan in 1994 but it never came into being because of Russia's refusal to ratify it and demand for exclusive rights on oil and gas sectors. In 1999, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan signed a new treaty for a Customs Union and the Common Economic Space with the goal of further economic integration. Subsequently, the Central Asian Cooperation Organization (now defunct), the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Single Economic Space project were created. The Eurasian Association of Economic Cooperation (EurAsEC) was created in 2000 with the specific goals and objectives of creating Customs Union among the five member countries (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan) with a clear mandate to create common customs borders among its member states, to elaborate on a common foreign economic policy, tariffs and price policy and other mechanisms needed for common market.
After years of frustrating experiences with fellow Central Asian states, actively pursued the policy of regional integration with the participation of Russia and Belarus and the Treaty on the Establishment of an Integrated Customs Area and Formation of a Customs Union was signed in 2007 while the related control and regulatory agencies were founded in 2007–2010. On November 27, 2009 Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia agreed to create a Customs Union (CU) that would include the formation of a common customs space by July 2010 and paved the way for further integration resulted in creating a single economic space started in January 2012. Accordingly, the CU was created in January 2010 within the framework of the EurAsEC but it was unable to start functioning until the treaty was ratified and the customs and other codes were harmonized and finally on July 1st, 2011 the CU came into being.
As of March 2012, Kyrgyzstan officially applied for the membership in the CU although there are still a number of unresolved issues and challenges. Tajikistan is the next country that expressed interests in joining the CU although it has not yet applied considering the economic and political circumstances in the country and growing security threats emanating from the South because of escalating conflicts in Afghanistan, Dushanbe will hardly have any choice other than joining the Russian-led CU. Although Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan has not yet expressed any interests in joining it but if the CU will grow further and make good progress pressure from Moscow will continue and it will be difficult for them to remain outside the Union economically and politically. Kazakhstan may try to convince them by explaining the merits and benefits of joining such a Union without exerting pressure (which will be done by Moscow). As Eurasianism has become the core values of Kazakhstan's regional policy, its relations with other Central Asian states will be viewed and interpreted through the prisms of its relations with Moscow as well as its role, place and benefits from the CU. Kazakhstan may not put pressure on other Central Asian states to join the CU but if they join this will benefit Astana of having a larger market and improved economic and trade relations with them.
China
Geographically, Kazakhstan is surrounded by some of the major and emerging powers on earth; Russia in the North and North-West, China in the East and Iran and India are distant neighbors in the South and South-West while the War in Afghanistan is in its vicinity where the US and NATO troops are stationed and fighting against terrorism and fundamentalism. So, it is very important for Kazakhstan to maintain and improve relations with the neighbors and regional powers, particularly with China with whom Kazakhstan has a common border of 1700 km. Immediately after independence Kazakhstan was actively involved in mending fences with China, including resolving some of the territorial disputes, and expanding and promoting trade, economic and security relations based on the principles of peaceful coexistence, economic cooperation, mutual trust and respect of each others’ social/political order/system and respect of sovereignty. A Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation and a Declaration on Strategic Partnership were singed in 2002 and 2006 respectively. Within the framework of the SCO, the two countries are working closely to promote economic and trade relations as well as resolving bilateral and regional issues and conflicts (Gleason, 2001). In 2010, China was the second largest trade partner of Kazakhstan (with 24.3% trade turnover) behind the EU27 (with 28.5%). Other important sectors of China's relations with Kazakhstan are the energy, transportation and communication (Dodonov, 2010, 11–15). There are, however, some worries and concerns in Beijing regarding the recently created Customs Union and its true purpose and intensions (some Western press and media described it as an anti-Chinese venture headed by Russia) but Kazakhstan's leadership denounced such a view and rejected it as a propaganda, totally baseless and far from the truth (Nazarbayev, 2011, 8). There are also concerns in Kazakhstan regarding the ethnic unrests in China's Zhenjiang province and its potential spillover on its territory.
Russia
Russia is the largest and most important partner for Kazakhstan for a number of reasons; Kazakhstan has a 7591 km border with Russia and out of the 14
Foreign policies: European Union and USA
At the international level, the Eurasian policy serves as a cornerstone for designing and implementing Kazakhstan's foreign policy of maintaining and developing relations with all countries and regions in the world without annoying or agonizing Russia. Unlike, the Russian Eurasianism, in the Kazakhstani version there is no apparent conflict between Eurasianism and Altantism rather they are convergent, complimentary and enforce the common values and principles. The Atlantic Council in its studies and research also claims and suggests that Eurasia is a part of transatlantic security system that opposes the Russian nationalist perception of Eurasian security. In a report on ‘Modernizing the OSCE’, Ambassador Kurt Volker (2010), Managing Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, proposed to create a task force on ‘Eurasia as Part of Transatlantic Security’ with the goal of developing a coherent, effective U.S. strategy toward Eurasia. Kazakhstan's policy of Eurasianism does not oppose globalization rather considers it as an alternative way of development and integration that allows Kazakhstan to integrate into the global process.
Central Asia is of crucial geostrategic importance to the European Union (EU) as the region represents as a bridge to China, Afghanistan and the Middle East and source of significant energy imports for the EU (Akiner, 2010). But no separate policy for Central Asia was developed by the EU in the initial years rather it was viewed through its ‘Neighborhood Policy’ and the region was considered as ‘Neighbors of EU's Neighborhood’ (Rahr, 2009). In 2007 a broad strategy for assistance to Central Asia was adopted where the objectives were: (a) to ensure the stability and the security of the countries of the region, (b) to help eradicate poverty and increase living standards in the context of the Millennium Development Goals, and (c) to facilitate/promote closer regional cooperation both within Central Asia and between Central Asia and the EU, particularly in the energy, transport, higher education and environmental sectors (European Community Regional Strategy Paper for Assistance to Central Asia for the period of 2007–2013, pp. 4–8). The EU's policy of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) includes all five Central Asian states that are beneficiaries of it and seek to institutionalize legal, economic and social reforms with the EU standards (Sharipov, 2008). Kazakhstan developed a detailed policy of the ‘Way to Europe’ with 3 apparent goals and objectives: to get foreign direct investments form Europe with the aim of bringing Kazakhstan at the level of strategic partnership with the European countries by improving cooperation in the fields of new technologies, energy, transport, engineering; to improve and enhance Kazakhstan institutional and legislative base by using positive experience of the EU (Cutler, 2010).
Over the years Kazakhstan's relations with the EU grew fast and steadily and the OSCE Summit in Astana in December 2010 helped to cement those relations further. In 2010, the EU was the largest trading partner of Kazakhstan with 28.6% of trade turnover, China with 24.3%, Russia with 19.3%, followed by Turkey and the US with only 3.8% and 3.1% respectively. 5 Nevertheless, there are issues and challenges where the parties differ in views and perceptions: Kazakhstan and other Central Asian states consider terrorism, drug trafficking, spillover of the war in Afghanistan and growing Islamic radicalism and fundamentalism as the main sources of instability and insecurity, while the EU, although recognizes some those threats, considers the lack of democracy, good governance, human rights, corruptions and others as main sources of instability and insecurity. Many EU Members are concerned and suspicious about the proposed Eurasian Union, particularly about Russia's future role and place in the Union.
Kazakhstan's main import partners in 2010 were; Russia 33.7%, China 28.5%, EU27 19.9% with the US only 2.3%. Major export partners were: EU27 35.1%, China 21.1%, Russia 8.4%, followed by Turkey, Canada and the US. respectively. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_113406.pdf.
As far as the Kazakhstan–US relations were initial concerns in Washington about the enriched nuclear materials (ready to make bombs) in the territory of Kazakhstan after the collapse of the USSR but it was resolved peacefully and the materials were airlifted to the US through the program ‘Project Sapphire’ (Porter, 1997). Other major US interests are; securing military and security supports and cooperation from Kazakhstan in America's global war on terrorism in Afghanistan as well as Kazakhstan playing the role of stabilizer in the region which is crucially important for the US both economically and geo-politically. As far the Kazakhstan's Eurasian project is concerned, Washington seems to be less interested and worried about as any attempt of free trade and expansion of liberal, free market economy is welcome to the US. But the USA, like Europe, is suspicious about the future role of Russia in the region and warns that any attempt to control and limit the sovereignty and independence of Central Asian states by Russia will not be tolerated (Ismailov & Papava, 2010, 82).
Another important aspect of Kazakhstan's Eurasian foreign policy is its emphasis on trade and economic relations with emerging market economies in Asia and Asia-Pacific regions, including the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). For Kazakhstan, interactions with both East and West in political, economic, social and cultural spheres are crucial and important for peace, stability, security and prosperity in the Eurasian zone (Universal Doctrine of Eurasianism, 2008).
The Eurasian policy of Kazakhstan has another dimension; its relations with the Muslim countries which are important in order to strengthen its relations with the Arab and other Muslim countries (Mostafa, 2009). Kazakhstan's foreign policy toward the Muslim world is mainly directed through the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) where Kazakhstan held the Chairmanship in 2011–2012. In his speech at the Council of Foreign Ministers of the OIC held in Astana in 2010, President Nazarbayev suggested establishing a special website to highlight the activities of the OIC and encourage the young generation to turn to religion and Islamic culture and popularize Islamic spiritual values. He also emphasized the need to establish an open, honest dialog between the Muslim world and the West. 6 Kazakhstan's relations with Turkey, Iran and Pakistan are developed and maintained within the framework of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), created by Pakistan, Iran and Turkey in the 1980s, and all five Central Asian states plus Afghanistan and Azerbaijan joined the organization formally in November 1992. 7
Address by President Nursultan Nazarbayev at the 38th OIC Council of Foreign Ministers, June 28, 2011.
The Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) is a successor of Regional Cooperation and Development (RCD) which was created by Iran, Pakistan and Turkey in 1964 and renamed as ECO in 1985. http://www.ecosecretariat.org/.
The recently created CU and the future plan of transforming it into a Eurasian Union by 2015 is viewed as the success of the policy of Eurasianism and victory of Kazakhstan's foreign policy. Although the CU has made notable progress during the short period of time, it has its challenges and difficulties.
First, there is a continuous debate on sharing the benefits of the CU among member states. According to the mechanism of distribution of import customs duties between the member countries, Belarus gets 4.70% while Kazakhstan's and Russia's shares are 7.33% and 87.97% respectively. 8 Many observers have doubts and suspicions about Russia's true political and ideological goals and objectives in creating the CU. Oppositions in Kazakhstan and Belarus are worried and concerned about Russian's role and place in the Union and believe that the creation of the CU is a design by Russian ultra-nationalists, Neo-Eurasianists to restore Russian hegemony and imperial goals of restoring of the USSR.
For details see, www.tsouz.ru/KTS/meeting2010-03-25/pages/R_199.aspx.
Second, the agreement for creating the CU has been signed by the Presidents of Kazakhstan, Russia and Belarus (who are elected but there are concerns and questions about the freedom, fairness and legitimacy of those elections) and ratified by their respective Legislative bodies (that may not be fully independent and democratically elected). Another major complain is that there were never enough public debate and discussion on the issue of the CU and it is extremely difficult to assess and know about the real public support on this issue. Radical political change in any of the member states (there is a real possibility in Belarus) may jeopardize the future of the Union.
Third, there seems to have differences in visions and perceptions among the member states about the future of the Eurasian Union. President Nazarbayev unequivocally stated that the Union will not have any anti-Chinese, anti-West, anti-Global and anti-Atlantic direction but in Putin's and Lukashenka's views these issues are not very clear. Then there are disagreements regarding among the members about the future expansion of the Union; both President Nazarbayev and Lukashenka want to keep it among the former Soviet Republics while Russian experts argue to include Finland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Moldova and Mongolia into the Union where Russian will be the official language and Ruble the unit of currency.
Fourth, the ghosts of past failures of integration attempts are still alive, not mentioning the psychological and emotional factors of heavy-handed ideological and political totalitarian repressive rules of the USSR, and any initiative for integration taken by Russian Federation, whether economic or political, may be viewed cautiously and suspiciously by other post-Soviet States.
Fifth, Kazakhstan's ‘multi-vector’ foreign policy and friendly cooperative relations with countries in the world is well known and the country enjoys a prestigious and respected position in the community of nations but too close relations with Moscow, both political and economic, through the framework of the Eurasian Union, may damage that balance and may negatively affect the country's long-term foreign policy interests.
Sixth, history shows that for the success of a Union or Alliance, there must be a leader, a financier who is able and willing to pay the price as and when necessary; the US has been doing that role for the NATO and for global security and Germany has been playing the similar role for the EU. So the fundamental question: is Russia able or willing to play that role?
Finally, the issue of time limit. Experts and observers cast doubts on whether the Union can sustain and maintain the tempo of such a fast and quick growth and development. As mentioned earlier, the CU started functioning in July 2011 and within 6 months the Member states decided to elevate it into the Common Economic Space (CES) and to transform it into a full Union by 2015 when it took the EU for about three decades to attain that stage.
Among the various types and versions of Eurasianism discussed in the paper, the Russian views and perceptions of Eurasianism developed, suggested and propagated mainly by radical nationalists who seem to be very active, dominant and organized academically and intellectually but it did not evolve as a state policy or ideology. Kazakhstan's policy of Eurasianism serves several purposes: internationally, it helps the state to develop and maintain balanced and friendly relations with all major states and blocs; regionally it is used as a vehicle and policy guideline for creating and deepening the integration process at the post-Soviet space; domestically, the policy of Eurasianism is used for consolidating national integration, national-building and creating national consensus and harmony among the different segments of population.
Kazakhstan welcomed the Russian and Belarusian views of integration with its own plans, ideas and suggestions and has been working hard for a greater integration of Eurasia. But there are potential challenges and difficulties; on the Russian side the nationalists and Neo-Eurasianists are excited and thrilled that Russia will re-emerge and re-establish its power and influence in the Eurasian space which was lost as a result of the collapse of the USSR which Vladimir Putin characterized as the “Great Geo-political disaster in Eurasia”. But nationalists, modernists, business leaders and elites in both Kazakhstan and Belarus may not be so supportive and enthusiastic about the Eurasian Union and may oppose such a move.
As far as, Kazakhstan's role and place in improving relations between Asia and Europe are concerned it appears to have the commitment, ability and willingness at the level of top leadership but its success and effectiveness will depend on a number of factors; political developments, institution building and democratization process in the country, political changes and future leadership, balance of political power and interests among political and social groups and forces and their influence and impacts on domestic peace, stability and harmony. Any radical changes in regional politics (Central Asian countries, China and Russia) and future trends and directions of the Afghan war may limit and affect Kazakhstan policy options and choices.