Pryakhin V.F. Review of the article by Sh.I. Fahrutdinov “Experience of Uzbekistan on the Prevention of Threats: the Factors and Criteria to Create a Sustainable Society”

Review of the article by Sh.I. Fahrutdinov “EXPERIENCE of UZBEKISTAN ON the PREVENTION of THREATS: the FACTORS AND CRITERIA to CREATE a SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY”

Reviewer:

V.F. Pryakhin Doctor of political sciences, Professor of the Chair of foreign regional studies and foreign policy, Russian State Humanitarian University, Moscow, Russia

The article by Doctor of political sciences, Professor S. I. Fahrutdinov is devoted to the topical issue of pre-emption of threats to achieve a sustainable society in a new independent state formed after the disintegration of the USSR. The demand for such work increases due to the fact that the reviewed material summarizes the experience gained in the course of state-building in the country, which is at the forefront of the fight against pseudo-religious extremism, international terrorism and drug trafficking. The author raises the topical question about the combination of external and internal threats to the stability of the young independent state.

One cannot but agree with the author's statement that the threats faced by the independent Republic of Uzbekistan can be divided into classic type challenges inherited from the ХХ century and qualitatively new problems of the global order that emerged in the XXI century. It is impressive that in the analysis of the causes of the "second order" threats the author refers to the fundamental works of the Russian researcher-globalist N. N. Moiseev, who actively used interdisciplinary methods and synergetic system approach in the analysis of global problems of our time.

Unfortunately, the general state of affairs with regard to the prevention of global challenges and threats in the context of international relations leaves much to be desired. None of the eight tasks identified for solution for 2015 in the ambitious program the "Millennium development goals," adopted at the Millennium Summit, had been resolved. The reason for this is, first of all, the unwillingness of the world's political elite to recognize a qualitatively new nature of threats of the XXI century. In this context, the seemingly axiomatic conclusion of the author of the reviewed article that the main prerequisite for the prevention of threats is their recognition and correct assessment acquires relevant methodological and substantive philosophic character. This conclusion of the author is based on the practical experience of building an independent Uzbek state. In the difficult conditions of unprecedented pressure from pseudo-religious extremism and terrorism, the leadership of the Republic of Uzbekistan managed to preserve and strengthen the secular character of the state and not only in its own country. Together with other CIS countries, Tashkent actively contributed to the elimination of the threat of the neighboring Tajikistan into a stronghold of the world jihadism.

The article presents the author's classification of threats to internal political stability, as well as the main directions of counteraction to these threats. It seems that this classification can and should be significantly supplemented in subsequent studies by the author. In particular, in our view, insufficient attention has been paid to the natural and man-made challenges to stability. It is well known, for example, that a great danger for stability in Uzbekistan and throughout Central Asia is the threat of a possible ecological catastrophe in the event of destruction of the natural dam that holds back the waters of lake Sarez in the mountainous Badakhshan (Tajikistan). The destruction of the dam by an earthquake or other anthropogenic/man-made impact would endanger the lives of five million people in all countries of Central Asia and Kazakhstan.

At the same time, one cannot but agree with the author's conclusion that in order to avert any threats to stability and security, a political unity of society is necessary, based on the trust of the people in the leadership of the country and the constant attention of the leadership to the pressing social and economic problems of the population. In this context, taking into account the complex historical retrospective, the author's references to the relevant speeches and instructions of the first President of independent Uzbekistan I.A. Karimov are relevant and topical.

He most important prerequisite for understanding the threats to political stability in Central Asia is the understanding of the specific circumstances and specifics in the region. Without this, even the most benevolent analysts may face difficulties in conclusions and assessments. A striking example in this regard is the book by former British Ambassador to Tashkent (2002-2004) K. Murray*, who, with the best intentions, criticized the domestic policy of the leadership of Uzbekistan and was forced to leave the country. Realism, to which the author of the reviewed article constantly refers, seems to be very appropriate and timely in this context, especially since it is accompanied by an unequivocal condemnation of the practice of "double standards" carried out by Western States, primarily the United States, in the interests of strengthening its imaginary hegemony in the modern world order. (p. 5)

As an example of the use of "double standards" the article appropriately, in our opinion, refers to the policy of the United States and its allies in Afghanistan. The military action authorized by the international community represented by the UN Security Council gave practically nothing from the point of view of fight against terrorism and strengthening of the regime of secular democratic power in that country. At the same time, it was used to further expand the "sphere of influence" of the United States in the region, the so-called "Greater Central Asia". Particularly noteworthy in this regard is the analysis of drug trafficking from Afghanistan through the post-Soviet countries, which has grown since the beginning of the military action of the US and NATO troops forty times and poses a real threat to other countries, including Uzbekistan.

Similarly, the author critically examines US policy in the Middle East. "The real development of events in the region after the liquidation of the Hussein regime, the article rightly notes, does not provide grounds for an unambiguous assessment of the effectiveness of the new US Middle East strategy: "democratization through occupation" has turned into a very expensive and controversial undertaking in a country that has no democratic tradition and is torn apart by a multitude of religious and ethnic contradictions." (p. 5)

The military intervention of the United States to fill the "democratic deficit" in Iraq and Afghanistan without the appropriate political training, the author rightly argues, showed its ineffectiveness. At the same time, the mechanism of "color revolutions" and "velvet changes" was invented to undermine stability in post-Soviet countries and the Middle East (p. 6). As a" Central Asian "example of the action of such mechanism, the article presents the "Tulip revolution" of 2005 in Kyrgyzstan. In our opinion, this phenomenon is not sufficiently studied in political science. Separate publications on this issue * do not cover the full scope of the issue as a system and, most importantly, do not contain an analysis of the U.S. policy in the region, aimed at the destabilization of local authorities under the pretext of "democratic deficit" and formation of obedient pocket regimes. It seems reasonable that the author should continue his research in this area.

A comparative analysis of the policy of provoking "velvet changes" in Uzbekistan and Ukraine seems to be new and very interesting in the scientific and applied political aspects. The author considers that the same mechanism was used in both countries. But in Uzbekistan, the threat to stability was anticipated in genesis and severely suppressed (the Andijan events). At the same time, developments in the Ukrainian scenario show that "velvet changes" can lead to bloody civil wars.

In the light of the discussions about the role of the ideological factor for the political stability of Russian society, the conclusion of the author (p. 8) about overcoming "the spiritual poverty of the people" as one of the main prerequisites for the successful confrontation of the destabilization attempts and "especially the dangers of radical, nationalist, and fascist ideologies" seems to be relevant and timely.

The author emphasizes the importance of the role of political leader at the critical stages of history, when the political stability of society is threatened. The article provides concrete examples confirming the above thesis with the historical material of the formation of the independent Uzbek state. At the same time, in our opinion, this conclusion should be diversified country-wise, since the concepts of the role of "leader" are very different even in the countries of Central Asia and Kazakhstan that are similar in many aspects. Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan represent here extreme antipodes. At the same time, as was rightly noted by Doctor of philosophy R. I. Otunbayeva, formal external differences often hide identical political realities of contemporary Central Asian societies.

In general, the reviewed article is a valuable contribution to the political science research of new challenges and threats in the Central Asian direction. The author's conclusions contribute to a better understanding of the nature of these threats also in the global aspect.