Pryakhin V.F., Medvedev N.P. Review of the Article by A.A. Krutyko “Pragmatic Model of Russian-Kirghiz Relations in the Context of Eurasian Integration”
DOI 10.35775/PSI.2019.32.2.017
REVIEW of the article by A.A. Krutyko “Pragmatic Model of Russian-Kirghiz Relations in the Context of Eurasian Integration”
Reviewers:
V.F. Pryakhin Doctor of Sciences(political sciences), Professor of the Chair of foreign regional studies and foreign policy of the Russian state Humanitarian University, Moscow, Russia
N.P. Medvedev Doctor of Sciences(political sciences), Professor of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia
It is gratifying that this article has been published on one of the most important topics of Russia's foreign policy, which, in our opinion, is not properly reflected in Russian science. It is even more important that the author of the article, as is clear from its reading, has good command of not only theoretical terms, but also of the details of such a “subtle” matter of the East in a practical context.
As an aspect of political theory, the author's determination and delineation of Russia’s interests and those of its strategic partners associated with the development of integration processes within the EAEU seems to be very timely and topical. It is no secret that the very idea of Eurasian integration from the very beginning had many opponents both in the West and in the post-Soviet space. Many researchers, particularly in the United States, considered the Eurasian idea itself to be a kind of euphemism designed to hide Kremlin’s ambitions for the restoration of the USSR. In this context, it is worth recalling that for the first time the initiative to create the Eurasian Economic Union was announced by the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan N. Ah. Nazarbayev in his memorable speech at Moscow State University in 1994. Moreover, the idea did not arose any enthusiasm in Moscow. Only with the coming to power of Vladimir Putin, the President of Kazakhstan now recalls, the Kremlin fully accepted the idea of EAEU. We brought this historical insight in order to emphasize the essence and importance of the main provisions of the pragmatic model of Russian-Kyrgyz relations proposed by the author in the context of Eurasian integration.
Russia is certainly interested in promoting the integration process in the Eurasian space. This aim was put forward, in particular, by Vladimir Putin’s proposal regarding global strategic project Greater Eurasia. This project is not aimed at the restoration of the Soviet Union, but at the implementation of the concept of a democratic polycentric world order, opposing the Americano-centric model of globalization which the patriarch of American foreign policy G. Kissinger once defined as “another name for the dominant role of the United States”.
At the same time, Russia's strategic partners in Eurasian integration, including Kyrgyzstan, link the Eurasian process with their priority tasks of internal development and strengthening of the regional stability.
To characterize this kind of symbiosis of global Russian and local Kyrgyz goals, the author proposes a kind of “pragmatic model,” including recognition of the mutual influence of economies and the dependence of the levels of socio-political stability of the EAEU member states; inclusion of the resources of the UN and other influential international organizations and financial institutions in the achievement of integration goals; expansion of the Eurasian integration, pairing it with other integration projects, primarily with the Chinese project “One belt – one road.”
It is impossible not to agree with the logic of this model’s construction. However, it appears that the number of its components can and should be substantially expanded. First of all, the Kyrgyz leadership, as well as the political elites of other Central Asian States and Kazakhstan, when considering the issues of participation (or non-participation as in the case of Turkmenistan) in certain integration processes and organizations first of all assess the possibilities of these organizations to contribute to the confrontation with the main destructive component of the situation in the region – the threat of religious extremism and international terrorism.
It is especially important to emphasize this in case of Kyrgyzstan, because the so-called “civilizational split” cuts the country right along the ridges of the Western Tien Shan. This mountain system splits the country into two regions, significantly different from each other in economic, ethnic and religious aspects, giving to some researchers grounds to talk about the North – South syndrome as the main destabilizing factor of the domestic political situation in Kyrgyzstan.
Naturally, therefore, that the issues of global Eurasian integration of Bishkek and Osh (the southern capital of Kyrgyzstan) are primarily associated with the integration of their own country and strengthening the consolidation of Kyrgyz people of different ethnic and religious backgrounds.
It is very important, in our opinion, that A. A. Krutko includes cooperation between Russia and international organizations, especially the UN, in assisting the development of Kyrgyzstan in the “pragmatic model”. The size of the paper does not allow the author to go beyond a few specific aspects of such interaction. In his further works on this topic, the author should, in our opinion, reach a higher level of theoretical generalization, since an increasing role of international organizations in solving global problems is perhaps the only positive alternative to the American-centered model of globalization and the world domination by the “Washington Regional Committee.”
At the same time, it is worth expanding the scope of this research to include in addition to the UN other international organizations, in particular the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, represented in Bishkek and Osh by its field offices.
There is a stable stereotype of the OSCE in the post-Soviet space, unfortunately, not without a reason, it is viewed as a tool for promoting the policy of the Organization’s "grandees" (the USA, Great Britain, Germany and France) in the former Soviet republics. At the same time, practical experience shows that with the proper leadership and active position of the states-recipients of economic and humanitarian support, the OSCE mechanisms and means can be usefully used for constructive purposes. In particular, in the zero years, the OSCE successfully contributed to the important environmental project aimed at the utilization of the rocket fuels stored in the former-Soviet states before the collapse of the USSR.
The Eurasian aspect of this topic is especially important, as the further improvement of the A. A. Krutko’s “pragmatic model” is impossible without the cooperation of Russia and Kyrgyzstan with such international organizations as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, ASEAN, the Program to prevent the spread of drugs in Central Asia, the Asian Development Bank, the Islamic Development Bank and others.
It seems that the author of the reviewed article made an important first step in the study of the promising topic of the political process in the Central Asian region and in the global aspect. The material presented by A.A. Krutko indicates that this task is up to him.