Geopolitical Stipulation of Central Asian Integration
2010; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 34; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/09700160903378319
ISSN1754-0054
Autores Tópico(s)Central Asia Education and Culture
ResumoAbstract The overall post-Soviet and post-Cold War transformation of the five Central Asian countries is multifaceted and complicated. New geopolitics has penetrated into almost all critically important spheres of post-Soviet transformation. Geopolitics even influences spheres such as national self-identification, which is traditionally regarded as having nothing to do with geopolitics. That is why one can assume that geopolitics stipulates regional integration as well. More precisely, regional integration for Central Asia is its response to geopolitical pressure from outside the region and its way of creating its new geopolitical status from within. Notes 1. Ali Banuazizi and Myron Weiner (eds.), The New Geopolitics of Central Asia and Its Borderlands, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1994, p. 11. 2. H.J. Mackinder, ‘The Geographical Pivot of History’, The Geographical Journal, 23(4), 1904, p. 434. See also M. Hauner, What is Asia to Us. Russia's Asian ‘Heartland’ Yesterday and Today, Routledge, London and New York, 1992. 3. H.J. Mackinder Democratic Ideals and Reality: A Study in the Politics of Reconstruction, Constable and Company, London, 1919, p. 194. 4. For interesting contemplations on this matter, see L. Hekimoglu, ‘Where Is “Heartland” Moving? Central Asia, Geography, Globalization’, Central Asia and Caucasus, 4, 2005, pp. 79–97; B. Ergashev, ‘Law and Accident: Critique of Mackinder's Theories’, Central Asia and Caucasus, 4, 2005, 98–106. 5. On critical geopolitics, see Lasha Tchantouridze (ed.), Geopolitics: Global Problems and Regional Concerns, Center for Defence and Security Studies, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 2004. See also M.P. Amineh, Globalization, Geopolitics and Energy Security in Central Eurasia and the Caspian Region, Clingendael International Energy Programme, The Hague, 2003. 6. See M. Hauner, n. 2, pp. 75, 96, 98, 115. 7. For details, see F. Tolipov, ‘Multilateralism, Bilateralism, and Unilateralism, in Fighting Terrorism in the SCO Area’, The China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, 4(2), May 2006, pp. 153–169. 8. Olga Oliker, ‘Friends Like These: Defining U.S. Interests in Central Asia’, in D. Burghart and T. Sabonis-Helf (eds.), In the Tracks of Tamerlane. Central Asia's Path to the 21-st Century, National Defense University, Washington, DC, 2004, p. 460. 9. The SCO is composed of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The EAEC includes Russia, Belarus, and the same Central Asian countries. 10. ‘Central Asia: On the Way towards Security and Cooperation’, Proceedings of the Tashkent Seminar on Security and Cooperation in Central Asia, September 15–16, 1995, ‘Uzbekistan’ Press, Tashkent, 1995, p. 46. 11. Islam Karimov, ‘Uzbekistan on the Threshold of the 21st Century: Security Threats, Conditions and Guarantees of Progress’, ‘Uzbekistan’ Press, Tashkent, 1997, p. 310. 12. In May 2005, the extremist organization Akromiya attacked government buildings in the Andijan city of Uzbekistan and faced a crack-down by the government forces. Hundreds of innocent civilians were killed during the counter-terrorist operation for which the international community harshly criticized Uzbekistan. The Uzbek leadership interpreted the uprising as inspired by the United States, and in the aftermath of this event, Uzbek–US relations remarkably worsened. 13. For details, see F. Tolipov, ‘The Expansion of Central Asia: The Russian Offensive or the Central Asian Surrender’, CACI ‘Analyst’, December 1, 2004, at http://www.cacianalyst.org (Accessed November 2, 2009).
Referência(s)