‍Central Asia and The Caucasus Journal

Abstract  
            Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) is a regional union of eleven countries in Central Asia, South Asia, South Caucasus and China. This program was established in 2001 by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and has some noticeable achievements in four areas of transportation, energy, trade facilitation and trade policies. It tries to promote energy security in the region through the CAREC Energy Strategy and Work Plan. The present article attempts to find an answer for the following question: Does CAREC Energy Strategy and Work Plan has the potential for promoting energy security in Central Asia, and why?
The author argues that although CAREC is the most important regional initiative for energy provisions in Central Asia, it lacks a proper potentiality for promoting energy security in Central Asia due to prioritizing bilateral and multilateral projects instead of inclusive regional ones; focusing on benefit making for investors instead of transfer of technology to the region; and its instability. Using explanatory – analytical method and through a documentary – library research, the author tries to tell why the research findings provide an answer to the research question.

Abstract The establishment of the Eurasian Economic Union strengthened Russia's position in bilateral relations towards other members of the union, although the multilateral relations between post-communist countries remained without progress. Establishing Eurasian Economic Union to some extent also has fulfilled the geopolitical ambitions of Moscow, but the determination of the geopolitical agenda for this union by Moscow, despite the presence of members with the primary objective of economic interests, will not be easy. This is despite the fact that Russia has incurred considerable costs to establish this union and has pursued the policy of "luring by subsidizing". The main question of this article is "what does Russian expect to gain through in vesting on the establishment and expansion of the Eurasian Economic Union, considering the fact bilateral agreements with post-Soviet governments provides this country with more economic benefits?” The hypothesis tested under the framework of the new regionalism theory is: "although Russia's primary goal by establishing and expanding the Eurasian Economic Union is to strengthen a geopolitical deploy against the West at the borders of the European Union at the expense of exorbitant costs in order to keep these countries away from the west, it has not over looked the benefits of a long term economic, social and cultural cohesion of this union in the post-Soviet space". The study is descriptive-analytical and methodology applied to analyze the collected data is causal.

Abstract The “soft power” as an important concept was firstly entered to the political discourse of Vladimir Putin in February 2012; This concept, which is now of great concern for Kremlin, is derived from diverse and somehow contradictory resources with mostly governmental and formal natures. While focusing on Russia’s soft power towards its near abroad, using Nye’s conceptual framework, the present literature tries to study Kremlin’s goals of developing soft power and its soft power resources and instruments towards near abroad. Through studying Russia’s soft power resources in culture, economics and politics, the authors conclude that Russia’s political values are traceable in all the three mentioned areas. In fact, the purpose of this paper is to answer the following questions: what are the resources and instruments for Russia’s soft power that have empowered Russia regionally? And what are the constraints for Russian soft power in the region? The proposed hypothesis is that Russia's soft power in near abroad encompasses Russian language, culture, media, Orthodox Church, Russian compatriots as well as trade diplomacy. But instrumental look at soft power resources in this strategic region, as well as ineffectiveness, have weakened Russia's desirable convergence in near abroad. Using descriptive-analytical method, and based library and internet resources, the authors try to find an answer for the research question.

Abstract Although the Ukrainian crisis was accompanied by tensions between Russia and the West and the imposition of mutual sanctions, demonstration of military power and diplomatic conflicts, it did not have a great impact on the Russian Federation's policies in the Arctic and its militarism in that region. At the same time, Moscow has managed to continue its cooperation in the Arctic despite current tensions with the West, and to extend its relations with other regional actors in a cooperative manner. The author attempts to find an answer for the following questions: a) Why Russia, in spite of its rivalry with the United States and the West, has not behaved contentiously in the arctic; b) why Ukraine's experience does not seem to happen in the Arctic? To answer the mentioned questions, the hypothesis has been tested through examining the two theoretical approaches of "complex interdependence" and "neo-realism" confirming that "the superiority of Russia's position in the Arctic and the lack of a serious threat to its interests in this area by the other powers has led Russia to play differently in the Arctic, in such a way that Moscow requires cooperation and, at least, avoids from tension in the region in order to gain its absolute interests. Therefore, the Ukrainian crisis has not had much influence on Moscow's understanding of the Arctic as an area of international cooperation and peace. The findings of this study, which are comparative and descriptive-analytical, confirm the validity of the research hypothesis.

Abstract The noticeable evolutions and changes, in Uzbekistan’s foreign policy particularly towards Tajikistan that occurred after the sudden death of Islam Karimov on September 2016, arouses the following questions: a) What are the causes for détente and de-securitization in Tajikistan-Uzbekistan relations? b) What ramifications does the mentioned issue bring along?In order to answer the mentioned questions, the author argues that the change in Uzbekistan’s leadership and Mirziyoyev’s effort for domestic growth and development, developing and extending energy pipelines and corridors in the region, besides leaving Karimov’scult of personality have all led to transforming Uzbekistan’s foreign policy and strengthening regional cooperation with the participation of five Central Asian states.In order to assess the literature’s hypothesis, the author addresses Tajikistan and Uzbekistan’s relations in two specific eras of securitization (1991-2016) and de-securitization (since September 2016), based on descriptive-analytical method and applying theoretical concepts and factors of (de)securitization within the Copenhagen School of security.During the first decade that encompasses a long period of Karimov’s leadership in Uzbekistan (1991-2016), many social (ethnicity, language and culture) and economic (water resources and environment) issues between the both nations were deviated from their natural and normal direction and became politicized and securitized. However, during the letter era, Uzbekistan was experiencing an evolution that was derived of two main reasons; a) a change of elites and actors in Uzbekistan,particularly Karimov and Inoyatov; b) Mirziyoyev’s taking the power. The mentioned factors changed Uzbekistan’s dominant discourse towards Tajikistan. This discourse change led to a better cooperation among the five Central Asian states in diverse areas without an involvement of external powers especially the Russian Federation and China.
 

Abstract During the Post-Cold War era, Moscow used various tools to secure its interests in the Post-Soviet space. Although Russia's status as one of the world's great powers might have been questioned in theory and practice since the collapse of the Soviet Union, its determining role as a regional power among former Soviet republics has remained unquestionable. Authors hold that the concept of "regional hegemony" can be applied to understand Russia's relations with its neighbors. The continuity of a regional power’s hegemony despite its decline in terms of material capabilities may lead us to explore the role of non-material factors. Given the fact that Russia's material power resources have been declining to different extents and can hardly be enough to ensure the continuity of its regional hegemony, the authors investigate non-material elements and indicators of Russia's power. Using the theory of "Socialization and Hegemonic Power" which underlines the role of subjective elements in preserving hegemony, as well a descriptive – analytical research method, the authors try to tell why the research findings provide an answer to the following question: Why has Russia's regional hegemony survived the gradual decline of its material power resources and independent-minded policies of some post-Soviet states? The main hypothesis of the study underlines the role of cultural resources of Russia's power in forming post-Soviet elites' mindsets and supplementing military and economic elements and as a result perpetuating Russia's hegemonic status.