Ïîëèòîëîãèÿ/ 7.
Ãëîáàëèñòèêà
Ph.D. student Taukebayeva E.S.
Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Department
of Political Science, Kazakhstan
The United States and the European Union’s positions
regarding Central Asian security: comparative analysis
This paper examines different positions of the United States of America and the European Union regarding
Central Asian security. The specific aim of the study is to compare policies of
these countries using R. Cooper’s theory of the Post-Modern State and the World
Order as a methodological ground /1/. Let’s classify the objects of our
research in compliance with it. Central Asia, within the certain limits, is a
pre-modern member of world community as it lives off natural resources and
counts on various forms of aid from the leading world powers; the USA is a
modern state as a state, willing to use force to defend its interests; it has expansionist
tendencies, great confidence and nationalism, R. Cooper characterizes the USA
in terms of “defensive modernism” and the European Union corresponds to
characteristics of a postmodern system as it places more emphasis on
the system of mutual co-operation, even domestically.
Central
Asia as a region, rich in natural resources, attracts great interest from the USA and the EU. But their
views and positions relative to it differ.
The USA, consolidating their grip
on the region, proceeded from the geopolitical considerations, especially after
September, 11 2001. The bases in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have a strategic meaning:
they are a so-called “bridgehead” of the USA influence and power
projection from Central Asia to Afghanistan and South Asia. The presence of the USA in Central Asia is imposed by
military-political reasons; the main mechanism of influence is the NATO program
“Partnership for Peace”.
The other constituent of the USA strategy is the
establishment of the control over the Caspian region in order to maintain world
energy balance. Simultaneously, USA popularizes American
variation of democracy and democratic values through NGO, associations,
educational institutions and programs, sponsored by it. The main point is to
direct the economics of the Central Asian states to the petroleum production as
the main condition of economical prosperity and democratization. This policy
towards the Central Asian countries is the direct continuation of their foreign
policy’s central core: “It is the policy of the United States to seek and
support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with
the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world”/2/.
But the USA doesn’t place any
emphasis on agrarian reform’s realization, development of high technologies, and
augmentation of the humanitarian assistance. That sort of American strategy’s
realization in the region can bring to social strain intensification and can
result in destabilization of the region.
Unlike the USA, the EU doesn’t have
clear, systematic strategy of its presence in Central Asia. “European strategy” is
based only on two instruments - EBRD (European Bank of Reconstruction and
Development) and OSCE. Besides, it is realized partially within the bounds of
NATO. Though we can’t deny the great role of the New Strategy “The
EU and Central Asia: Strategy
for a New Partnership”, approved by the EU in May 2007. The aim of the EU activity
is to contribute to stability, support democratic organizations, promote
economic reforms, and solve ecological problems. So the strategy covers such
issues as security and stability problems, including drugs and arms
trafficking; instruments to be used for the intensification of cooperation with
Central Asia; bilateral and regional cooperation; human rights and law
enforcement; economic reforms: development, investments, trade; strengthening
energy and transport links; environmental
sustainability and water; education etc /3/. But the level of the EU interest to Central Asia is still low. It is so,
because our region is not the priority zone. This state is also proved by the special
representative of EU on the countries of the Central Asia Pierre Morrel, who
made its mini-presentation in the frames of international conference in
Dushanbe in June 2007 /4/. The other reason of the EU low level cooperation with Central Asia in the sphere of
international security is that it doesn’t pursue unified policy in foreign and
defense sphere.
Thus, the EU interests in
Central Asia are absolutely different, than the USA interests and specified
by the region’s proximity. The main interest of the EU is not so much energy
resources as stability (though the EU is one of the leading future consumers of
the region energy resources). Any destabilization of the situation in the
region affects European security first of all, and less it concerns the USA.
Resuming, we can say that
the USA and the EU positions’
diversity is defined by their affiliation with different structural components
of “the New World Order”.
As regards Central Asia, it will stay in the
center of geopolitical games; this will enable the region to develop more or
less independently, carry out long felt needed political and economical
reforms, and consolidate the integration. This means that the positions’
diversity of the USA and the EU has a
favorable impact on the region.
References:
1. Cooper R. (2002) “The Postmodern State”. In: Mark Leonard (Ed.) Re-ordering the world: The long-term
implications of September 11th. London: Foreign
Policy Centre http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4388912,00.html
2. The National Security
Strategy of the United States of America // http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html.
3. The
EU and Central Asia: Strategy
for a New Partnership // http://www.eu2007.de/fr/News/download_docs/Juni/0630-RAA/030-Hintergrundinformation.pdf.
4.
Åâðîñîþç îäîáðèë ñòðàòåãèþ ïî Öåíòðàëüíîé Àçèè. Í.Áóõàðè-çàäå,
Ì.Áóøóåâ, Äóøàíáå-Áîíí. Íåìåöêàÿ âîëíà, 25.06.2007 // http://www.arba.ru/news/2330