Gaiduk V.V. Political crises and conflicts: theory and practice (Review of the monograph by Medvedev N.P. "Political crises and conflicts: theory and practice". – Moscow: Publishing house of the journal Political science, 2017. – p. 161)
Political crises and conflicts: theory and practice (Review of the monograph by Medvedev N. P. "Political crises and conflicts: theory and practice". – Moscow: Publishing house of the journal Political science, 2017. – p. 161)
Reviewer:
V.V. Gaiduk Doctor of political sciences, Professor of Bashkir state University, Ufa, Russia
Military events in Syria, Yemen and Iran, terrorist attacks in Turkey, Russia, the European Union and the United States suggest that the conflict potential in the world at the beginning of the XXI century is not reducing, but only changes its form. And the paradigm of politics that goes through "conflicts and cooperation" is becoming more and more relevant for political science, and political conflictology as a new scientific direction is becoming more and more popular.
Analysis of the sources of origin, issues of crisis prevention and resolution, the study of the consequences of political conflicts are important theoretical and practical tasks for political science.
The problem of social conflict has been well developed in numerous recent publications by scientists from various fields of social knowledge. At the same time, many aspects of political conflicts themselves are not yet sufficiently explored. Scientific literature as a rule analyzes specific conflicts, their genesis, the subjects of the conflict, the issues of settlement and stabilization of the political situation. But, it is obvious that so far there are few monographs on the General theory of political conflict and the practice of post-conflict political stabilization.
The monograph of Medvedev N.P., Doctor of political sciences, Professor of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, "Political crises and conflicts: theory and practice" is a successful attempt to consolidate various concepts of socio-political crises, to present typology of political conflicts and examine the post-Soviet models of ethno-political destabilization in Russia and the CIS countries. The monograph also analyzes possibilities of political consensus and its role in socio-political stabilization of modern states.
It can be said that the reviewed monograph consists of three main parts. The first part (Chapter 1 and Chapter 2) provides an analysis of the basic concepts of political conflicts and reveals the theoretical foundations of the sources of political conflicts. In doing so, an attempt is made to clarify the definition of "political crisis" and to characterize the distinctive features associated with its more systemic nature than a political conflict. Proceeding from the generally accepted approach to the typology of political conflicts, the monograph expands the boundaries of this approach and distinguishes ethno-political conflicts and post-Soviet political crises.
The second part (Chapter 3) provides a description of the sources and consequences of political crises in Russia in 1991 and 1993. For the first time in Russian scientific of the political science literature says about the positive role of inter-party conflicts as sources of socio-political development.
The third part of the reviewed study (Chapter 4) deals with the problems of conflict resolution, analyzes the main ways to achieve political stability and the methods of political consensus as a basis for stability and development.
When politics is viewed as" the art of the possible", the idea is first of all to resolve social conflicts through consensus and compromise, that is, everything opposite to military force. In this context, the monograph N.P. Medvedev from the methodological point of view successfully analyzes the main concepts of political conflict and actualizes the sources of such type of conflicts. And based on the typology of conflicts, the main resources and the mechanism of their settlement by diplomatic means through negotiations, mediation and compromises are revealed.
Drawing conclusions about the peculiarities of the post-Soviet political crises, the reviewed monograph describes in sufficient detail and thoroughly the historical and ethno-cultural factors that turn into an additional resource of this kind of political clashes. Characteristics of the political crisis of 1991, according to the author, provide a reasonable basis for the conclusions, on the one hand, about the dramatic end of the democratic reforms that started in the economy and politics, the weakness of the new political institutions of the time, and, on the other, about the state of society and the attitudes of young democratic elite of Russia, which greatly increased the resource of perestroika political forces and the emerging new political regime. It is the key to the victory over the GKChP-91, which was historically the most significant world event of the late XX century, which prevented the return of the Communist forces to power in the USSR through the use of violent methods and military force.
But that victory failed to completely destroy the systemic conflict between the group interests of the pro-Soviet elites and the democratic forces of Russia. Actually, according to the author of the monograph, the main sources of the constitutional and political crisis of 1993 are hidden here. Many post-Soviet elite groups, both in politics and economics, focused on half-hearted solutions, afraid of radical social reforms. According to Professor N.P. Medvedev, fundamentally different approaches to the reforms of that time divided the Russian Parliament (the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation) as a representative institution of power into two opposing groups. The constitutional reform of 1993 was carried out with the use of force, which later largely caused an imbalance in the new Constitution of Russia with the predominance of the powers of the President of the Russian Federation and the executive authorities. In the circumstances unfavorable for the society, violation of the principle of separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial and the principle of checks and balances may lead to the withdrawal of the executive branch from the parliamentary control, further political crises and the use of force for their resolution.
That is why, the author of the reviewed monograph emphasizes, it is so important in the conditions of modern Russia to further expand knowledge about ways to achieve political stability and the possibilities of applying consensus methods for their resolution in emerging socio-political crises.
Monograph by RUDN Professor Medvedev N. P. "Political crises and conflicts: theory and practice" is of both scientific interest for political scientists and undoubted practical interest for conflict scientists, diplomats and politicians.
MIKHAILENKO A.N. Evolution of the Pattern of International Relations with a Dominant Element
A.N. MIKHAILENKO Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor, Department of international security and foreign policy of Russia, Faculty of national security, Institute of law and national security, Russian Presidential Academy of national economy and public service, Moscow, Russia
EVOLUTION OF THE PATTERN OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS WITH A DOMINANT ELEMENT
In its development, the pattern of international relations with a dominant element, which sometimes takes the form of a fragment, can go through several stages. In the course of evolution, the element consistently turns into a component, segment, moment and factor. Capabilities of such model logically disclose in the transformation of the dominant factor into the leadership factor. At the final stage of development, the productive potential of such model of international relations is exhausted and it becomes necessary to find a new model.
Key words: pattern of international relations with the dominant element, fragment, component, segment, moment, factor, leadership.
In a previous paper the author jointly with A. V. Kozhuhov analyzed modern Russian-Afghan relations . The analysis showed that there are different patterns of bilateral international relations, such as a balance of forces, bipolar relations, integration, confrontation and others. We have come to the conclusion that none of the models that existed at that time was capable of explaining relations between Russia and Afghanistan. A new model was proposed: a model with a dominant element which in this case was the anti-drug cooperation between the two countries. Other elements that were proposed included political and economic cooperation, military and technical, humanitarian and other.
The essence of proposed model was that the dominant element, as a locomotive pulls other elements of the model, which is why the development of relations between the two countries takes place. The unifying power of the "locomotive" depends on its ability to create a resonance between the dominant and other elements of such model. Subsequent reflections led to the understanding that such model is applicable not only to the Russian-Afghan relations. It was necessary to generalize similar situations in the political theory and foreign policy practice in order to reveal possible stages of development of this model. For this purpose it was necessary to get a more detailed understanding of the relationship between a part and a whole in international relations, although there is not much literature on this topic .
Element
In the article mentioned above, we noted that the starting point for the formation and development of a pattern of international relations with a dominant element can be a random coincidence, historical background or other circumstances. Elements included in it can thus be of a non-systematic nature. Actually, this is what the word "element" means. According to one version, it comes from a sequence of letters L, M and N in the Latin alphabet. In other words, elements may be arbitrarily taken parts of a totality, which do not necessarily have close ties. Although the term "element" is widely used in scientific analysis , explanations of its meaning are not so common.
In our opinion, identification of the totality of elements of the pattern of international relations is only the first step towards developing a system that represents the pattern of Russian-Afghan relations, since there is a significant difference between the totality and the system. No established relationships exist between the elements of a totality, functions of each element in the totality are not determined and the driving force of the model development remains a secret. Most often, it relates to the initial stage of formation of the system of international relations or to the time of its sharp reformatting. In order to move forward in understanding the essence of modern Russian-Afghan relations, it was proposed to go all the way from the totality of elements to the system .
Transition from randomness to the necessity in the formation of the model can be carried out in various ways. When analyzing Russian-Afghan relations, it was found out that Afghan politics, economy and other sectors were already dominated by other countries. For example, the United States dominated the political sector and tried to prevent other players from entering it. At the same time, it was revealed that the greatest damage to Russia was caused by Afghan drugs, and this fact became the fulcrum in the development of the proposed model of relations between the two countries with the dominant element. The anti-drug cooperation between the two states played the role of such element.
The dominant element in the system of international relations sometimes arises not in an instant, but gradually. A lack of understanding of the significance of the dominant element can lead to a reformatting of international relations, as well as significant changes in the domestic political situation in the country. Refugees and migrants who flooded Europe as a result of integration processes in the EU and the rampant terrorism in North Africa can be considered as such element. The inability to link it with other elements of international relations resulted in a sharp drop in the popularity of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2016 and, to a large extent, to the UK decision to withdraw from the European Union.
Such uneven development of various elements of international relations leads to a decrease in the effectiveness of the entire system. It is quite common in international practice. Thus, it was repeatedly stated that the development of Russian-Chinese economic relations significantly lags behind the high level of political relations between the two countries. It is proved by the data on China's foreign trade. In 2015, China's trade with Russia amounted to about US$68 billion, while with the US to US$560 billion, with the EU countries to 521 billion euros and with Japan and South Korea to US$280 billion each. The closeness of economic relations can affect the priority of other areas in the international relations of a country.
Fragment
A fragment of international relations can be a kind of element. Fragment is a piece, a splinter, from the Latin verb frangere "to break, fracture, smash." A fragment can be a splinter of the past or a bunch of previously unrealized possibilities. In foreign policy, a fragment can be an element that is separated from the whole artificially or under the pressure of circumstances and continues to play a significant role in international relations. As a part of such approach, the natural way for the fragment could be integration into the system of international relations of the country in the subsequent development in order to ensure its integrity. In the process of "reintegration," such a return should be filled with a new meaning.
The situation in Georgia today can serve as an example of a model of international relations with a dominant fragment. A few years ago, due to the internal situation and determined efforts of the West, it was artificially cut off from Russia, but cannot exist like this, so the country has to work out options for the reconstruction of immanent relations. We agree with the opinion of G. B. Karasin, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, who said that "during the last four years we have succeeded in considerably improving bilateral relations, in bringing them out of a deadlock in which they appeared due to the fault of M. Saakashvili's regime. Russia has again become one of the Georgia’s key economic partners, the two countries have normalized transport communications and are rapidly developing traditional humanitarian contacts and cultural exchanges. In other words, we have achieved tangible results that fully meet the interests of the citizens of our two countries" .
Similar processes are taking place now in Moldova. I. Dodon, Chairman of the Party of socialists, who advocates the restoration of ties with Russia, won the presidential elections held in November 2016 in that country. Such relations were brought to a minimum by the previous Moldovan political leadership with the blessing of the European Union. However, it can be assumed that in connection with the events in Ukraine, European politicians are becoming increasingly aware that such attempts of fragmentation of the post-Soviet space for the selfish geopolitical purposes are fraught with negative consequences. They can see it from the moods of the Moldavian people. Therefore, the Moldovan leadership is encouraged to develop ties with Russia, if possible, without prejudice to the Association Agreement with the European Union.
These examples are no exception in international relations. Fragments are easily formed at the turns of history, for example, during the collapse of the colonial system. At that moment, the countries liberated from the colonial oppression succumbed to the euphoria of independence, establishing ties with various states on all continents. However, after a short period of time, political, economic and other realities forced many of them to restore in new forms vital relations with former metropolitan areas. Defragmentation has taken various forms, such as the Commonwealth of Nations, which today includes 52 countries. Another similar example is Francophonie with 57 member states.
Component
According to our approach, the next stage in the development of the model of international relations with the dominant element involves transformation of the element (fragment) into a component. The term "component" is widely used in political science . For example, O.A. Seliverstova highlights such components of "soft power" as economy, humanitarian capital, instruments of cultural influence, politics, diplomatic reputation of the country, as well as the potential of the language . A.N. Vylegzhanin analyzes components of the global interstate system, including its legal component . This term is actively used by other authors.
The word "component" came from the Latin words "com" and "ponere", that is "put together". This term is already contains goal-setting based on the interaction of components, their necessity to each other. In science, there is a certain difference between the element and the component. As part and whole, the element is more related to the set (or aggregation), while the component is related to the system . In the general systems theory, an element is often regarded as a basic unit, simple and indivisible. A component is a more complex part, which can consist of several elements, most often combined on a functional basis. Components are often represented as subsystems of higher-level systems.
However, this understanding of the component is not generally recognized, in the literature there are other positions in this regard. Yu. Soldatova, for example, writes that "only states are elements of international relations as a system, as the system of international relations can exist without the rest. Without the states, the very system of international relations is meaningless and unthinkable. Non-state actors and actors of the modern system of international relations are only components of its content" . In this interpretation, elements appear to be more significant parts of international relations than components.
In accordance with our approach, in the model of international relations elements change into components by purification from accidental, insignificant connections. This nuance in the close meanings of these words is felt not only by scientists, but also by politicians. Thus, at the end of October 2016, Crimean archaeologist A. Herzen speaking at the interregional forum of the All-Russia popular front about the composition of the Crimean population said: "they were descendants of the Goths, the Alans and other ethnic components of the medieval population of the Crimea exposed to Greek and Byzantine influences." Russian President Vladimir Putin responded to this statement as follows: "You talk about "other components." Actually, they were our ancestors" .
The most important feature of the component is its focus. The situation in modern Russian-American relations can serve as an illustration. In a telephone conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President - elect of the United States D. Trump on November 14, 2016 both parties stressed "the importance of creating a reliable basis for bilateral relations through the development of their trade and economic component" . In the first half of 2016, the United States ranked only fifth among Russia's major trading partners, largely due to sanctions that severely affected the interests of our European partners. Russia is not even among the top twenty of the main trading partners of the United States. Therefore, both countries will need to work hard to turn trade and economic ties between the two countries from the current not very significant element into an essential component of their system of relations.
Another important feature of the component is that its presence is essential for the model. Without it the system will not function and in this way it differs from the element. There are plenty of examples of such situation in modern political practice. Thus, for a long time it was believed that Britain is an integral component of the European Union. Who would have thought otherwise, bearing in mind that this country is the second in the EU in terms of economic power after Germany. However, the referendum held in 2016 showed that this opinion was wrong, ordinary British citizens see the situation differently. Currently, the EU is discussing "hard" and "soft" options for withdrawal of the UK from the Union. British politicians are also considering it. Such a serious error in the diagnosis of the state of the EU on the "element – component" axis gives reason to predict a further crisis of this integration organization.
The difference between the element and the component is clearly seen on the example of modern Ukraine. The current leadership of the country almost every minute declares that it is a part of Europe and protects Europe from Russian "aggression." According to many politicians and researchers, what we witness in Ukraine is a civil war in which Europe would not like to participate. The EU considers Ukraine a corrupt country, far from the European principles. Kiev leaders are afraid that the Ukrainian issues will no longer interest Europeans and will become a secondary element. If the current events in the country were indeed a component of European politics, such fears would not arise. In this case, you can see attempts to represent the element as a component. But only the desire to be a component is not enough, for the existence of the component you need materiality.
In other cases, the situation may be quite opposite, initially a component, that is still in the bud, may pass unnoticed or treated as an element. "Trump phenomenon" and his unexpected victory in the presidential elections in the United States in November 2016 may be considered as such. If at the beginning no one, even the Republican Party took it seriously, then they began to examine his attractiveness for the voters. A week before the vote, the vast majority of American and world media, as well as the public opinion polls favored the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Nevertheless, D. Trump won the elections. He became not an accidental, secondary element of American policy, but its dominant component – President of the United States.
Segment
The development of a model with a dominant component implies the involvement of other components of the system in the circle of its influence. An intermediate stage in this development of the model may be formation of a segment in the model of international relations. Segment (from the Latin segmentum means a segment) in geometry is defined as a part of the circle bounded by the segment of the circle and the chord tightening its ends. According to another definition, a segment in anatomy is one of many homogeneous areas (segments) that make up the body of animals or individual organs. The term "segment" is used in other sciences, including political science. A segment is sometimes referred to as a part of an international organization. Thus, a high-level segment of the IAEA international conference on nuclear security was held in Vienna in early December 2016.
In the literature on international issues, the term "segment" is used, but the authors rarely define it in relation to foreign policy issues . L. S. Voronkov concludes that "the role of international organizations in international relations has undergone qualitative changes. From auxiliary tools for solving individual problems of interaction of sovereign states they have become a segment of international life, deeply integrated into the system" . Such transformation is the path from the element to the component and then to the segment. The above author got it right and highlighted the essence of such transformation, which consists in integration, that is, in connecting parts into a whole.
In the considered model of international relations, the segment could appear quite significant phase of development. For example, in Russian-Afghan relations, the effective development of the anti-drug component could, with proper resonance, contribute to the strengthening of the security segment, which, in addition to this component, would include countering terrorism, military-technical cooperation and other "power" components. By their nature and functional load, these components are most closely related to each other. As a result, at a certain stage in the development of this model, the segment could play the role of the "locomotive" for the development of the entire system of Russian-Afghan relations.
Creation of the segment, however, doesn't necessarily mean inclusion of components of one function, there are various options for uniting them. An example of a "multifunctional" segment is the recent dynamic development of relations between Japan and India. Tokyo is trying to "enter" Indian economy through the construction of high-speed railways . The first contract for US$15 billion was signed in 2016 and New Delhi plans to build five more lines. Such huge investments (they will amount to US$287 billion by 2020) will allow Japan to significantly expand its economic presence in India. In order to win in the high-speed economic competition with traditional rivals from China, the Japanese took advantage of the political component, the existing political contradictions between the two Asian giants. The high-tech locomotive (literally and figuratively) in conjunction with the policy of strategic partnership should overtake Chinese competitors and pull relations between India and Japan to new heights.
Moment
When discussing the above terms, we emphasized the ratio of the part and the whole in international relations, but paid little attention to the driving force of these models. A new step towards the development of the model can be made through the use of the term "moment", which is also quite common in political texts. Thus, V.G. Baranovsky talks about a number of important points (moments) that globalization brings to international relations . He reveals new aspects in international development, in particular, the renaissance of economic determinism. K. Borishpolets, discussing the impact of religion on international relations, suggests taking into account a number of points (moments) . Among them-religious dynamics in the context of globalization, religious organizations in the context of international cooperation and others. The term "moment" is found in the texts of other authors.
Most often, the term "moment" refers to the time, moment, stage in the development of a process. In this sense, it is used not only in the scientific apparatus, but also in the everyday language, and in this meaning it is used in most cases. However, its etymology suggests one more meaning. Moment (from Latin momentum) is the driving force, an important circumstance, the engine of development. In philosophy, this notion was introduced by Hegel to denote a constituent part of the whole. We are interested in both meanings of this term.
There is a constant search for drivers of development in various countries. The domestic and foreign policy of the country largely depends on how they are defined. As an illustration of this thesis, we can take the current situation in Ukraine. After almost a quarter of a century of independence, the country remains fragmented and divided into poorly connected regions . This was stated by the first President of Ukraine L. Kravchuk. According to him, "the elite has no responsibility to the threat that is already hanging over Ukraine... the state is beginning to fall apart" . V.M. Litvin, former Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and now MP, repeated this thought: "We are very well tailored in territorial terms, as a state, but poorly sewn, and in conditions of instability we have centrifugal trends" . To get out of this situation, it was necessary to find a unifying moment, a driving force for the further development of the country.
To get out of this situation, it was necessary to find a unifying moment, a driving force for the further development of the country. It consists in the use of extreme radical nationalism in the form of Bandera-style thinking. It's a simple, but a very dangerous tool of uniting people. Initially, Europeans ignored such danger, satisfied with their geopolitical interest in breaking Ukraine away from Russia. Today, however, given the strengthening of nationalist parties and a noticeable right trend in the electorate’s moods in a number of European countries, they have become much more cautious in their relations with Ukrainian politicians. The use of the above nationalist trend led to the civil war in the country, sharp deterioration of its relations with Russia that affected the interests of both Russia and Europe, economic sanctions and other negative consequences.
In this regard, the policy of Russia and Europe should, in our view, be aimed at translating the Bandera-style moment of Ukrainian foreign and domestic policy from today's dominant into tomorrow's secondary moment. As a part of such trend, Ukrainian politicians should try to exclude radicalism threatening the society from the Ukrainian political spectrum. In case of such development of events, the term "moment" could be used in describing the current Ukrainian political model only in its first meaning as a tragic moment in the history of Ukraine. As for the second meaning of this term, Ukraine is rich in various talents and is able to find other driving forces that will enable it to emerge from the current crisis. If we go back to the terminology, the term "factor" is used much more often in describing the spring, the driving force of development in political texts in this sense.
Factor
In accordance with our approach, at the next stage of the model development the moment should be transformed into a factor of international relations. The word "factor" comes from the Latin "facere" meaning "to do." Factor is the active reason, the driving force of activity. Such is the goal realized by the subject, finding appropriate means and methods of activity. If the previous terms to a greater extent reflected the characteristics of the object of international relations, the factor is directly related to their subject. It stresses the principle of subjectivity, according to which the actor bears full responsibility for the success of the activity it carries out. It depends on a well-defined goal, well-defined tasks, skillfully selected tools and methods, full account of objective conditions of activity and other factors.
The concept of factor is often used in politological discourse . Available definitions, however, are often not sufficiently meaningful. Yu.Soldatova, for instance, writes that "the internal factors of states, which are complex systems within an even more complex system of international relations, affect the process and the result of perception in international relations" . Complexity is one of the attributes of modern systems in international relations, but it does not reveal their specificity. The uncertainty of the term "factor" leads to the uncertainty as to how it affects international processes, what exactly its driving force for development is.
The transition to a model with a dominant factor as a driving force for development is another step on the path from a casual, waiting policy to informed action in international relations. Thus, Russian scientists have developed a Global rating of the integrated power of 100 countries . The integral power of the state is assessed in this rating in accordance with nine basic factors, including the system of state and public administration, territory, natural resources, population, economy, culture and religion, science and education, the armed forces and foreign policy (geopolitical positioning).
It is noted in the Global rating that "an excessive development of some factors with a significant lag of others creates the risks of destabilization for the system. The ideal model of a viable state is a polyhedron inscribed in a circle with a uniform and maximum possible level of development of its power factors" . The authors of the Global rating believe that the states periodically face a need for accelerated development and finding new development impulses. In such situations, there is a need to "develop an effective strategy of activating factors that ensure the implementation of the accelerated development scenario." In our view, the model of international relations with the dominant factor embodies such a strategy.
The development of modern Russian-Chinese relations can serve as an illustration of this step. In recent decades, China was making a breakthrough aspiring to become one of the world's economic leaders. "It would be a mistake not to take advantage of this Asian-Pacific dominant," V.V. Putin wrote in one of his election articles in 2012. In his opinion, Russia needs to catch the "Chinese wind" in the "sails" of its economy. "We must actively build new cooperation ties, matching the technological and production capabilities of our countries, using – of course, wisely-Chinese potential for the economic recovery of Siberia and the Far East" .
The understanding of this situation showed that the economic cooperation of the two countries lags far behind the dominant factor – the unprecedently high level of political interaction . The answer to this challenge of the dominant factor consists in determination of political objectives of the economic cooperation between the two countries. This response was the course aimed at connecting the Eurasian integration with the Chinese program of the Silk Road Economic Belt. Currently, the practical elaboration of this idea is under way, a program for its implementation is being drawn up and priority economic projects included in it are being determined.
Leadership
Thus, we have gone from a pattern with a dominant element (fragment) through a component, segment and moment to a model with a dominant factor. The final stage of this path we see in the transformation of the dominant factor in the leading one. In one of the previous works, we have already focused on the difference between hegemony, domination and leadership . Hegemony and dominance are based on coercion to fulfill their demands, while leadership is based on attracting to its position because of its validity and creativity. Analyzing the recent dominance-based policy of the United States, the well-known American political scientist Ch. Krauthammer states: "Obama ordered a retreat, because he always felt that America is not perfect enough for world domination, too vicious to have the moral right to act as a global hegemon" . If domination is possible at the first stages of the formation and development of the model of international relations with the dominant element, then at the next stages it must go into the past, freeing up space for leadership.
The distinction between these two paradigms in world affairs is particularly evident in American politics. Authoritative American newspaper The Wall Street Journal cites the opinion of French President F. Hollande that "Americans, whatever they undertake, behave arrogantly" . The party, Alternative for Germany, opposed to American domination, may well get into the Bundestag and become the third largest party there, gaining 13% of the vote. The author of the article considers the decision of the Netherlands against the strengthening of relations between the European Union and Ukraine to be anti-American. The above newspaper article offers not a leadership, but a hegemonic solution to the problem of European anti-Americanism. According to its author, in accordance with the idea that the United States is an indispensable nation, the new us President should take a clear position on the new political circles in France after the 2017 elections. What this "clear position" should be, guess yourself. I would hope that President D. Trump elected in 2016 will change this position, rejecting the domination in favor of leadership.
Our analysis shows that the terms "element", "fragment", "component", "segment", "moment", "factor", "dominance " and" leadership" can be used to characterize the state of international relations within the framework of the proposed model. Their precise use will show the state of the particular system of international relations at each moment. The appropriate use of a term may indicate which aspects of the policy development are emphasized. It is obvious that the model of international relations with the dominant element in the development process, as Chronos, eats itself, gradually realizing its potential. In implementing this model, politicians should look for new models of international relations that would replace it in a timely manner.
The model of international relations with the dominant element can be quite widely used in political practice and political analysis. The above examples show that it is applicable in the study of Russia's bilateral relations with different countries. The strength of this model is in the vision of its development prospects, in the certainty of the stairs to be passed on the way. The evolution of the proposed model from a dominant element to a leadership factor can be seen as a process of maturity in international relations.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1. Abzhaparova L.Zh., Sarsembaeva A.B. Public diplomacy as a factor in international relations: historical experience of Kazakhstan // Fundamental research. – 2013. – No. 11-7.
2. Baranovsky V.G. Transformation of the world system in the 2000s // International processes. – 2010. – Vol. 8. – No. 22.
3. Bordachev Т. China and Russia seek answers to common challenges 06.04.2016. See: – URL: http://ru.valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/kitay-i-rossiya-ishchut-otvety-na-obshchie-vyzovy/.
4. Borishpolets К. The religious factor in international relations: an amalgam of values, interests and political priorities // Vestnik MGU. Series 17. – 2012. – No. 3.
5. Botasheva А.К. Goals and main components of antiterrorist strategy in international politics // Science and today. – 2014. – No. 32-1.
6. Voronkov L.S. International organizations: the main reasons for their emergence and development // MGIMO University Bulletin. – 2015. – No. 4 (43).
7. Vylegzhanin A.N. Formation of the global legal space in the XXI century // International processes. – 2010. – Vol. 8. – No. 2 (23). May-August.
8. Global rating of the integrated power of 100 countries. Report – 2012 for discussion. 3rd revised edition. – Moscow: International Academy of future studies, Institute of economic strategies, 2012.
9. Yegorova А.G. National law and foreign element // Bulletin of Polotsk state University. Series D: Economics and law: scientific and theoretical journal. – Novopolotsk: PGU, 2013. – No. 6.
10. Interview with G.B. Karasin, State Secretary and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia to Rossiya Segodnya news agency, November 03, 2016. Address – URL: http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news//asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2513205.
11. Kireeva N.V. Functional relations of parts in the integrated whole and definition of subjects of international integration processes // Politics and society. – 2013. – No. 12.
12. Коtova N.Е. The elements of unfair competition, the United States and Ukraine against Russian companies // Vestnik of Financial University. – 2014. – No. 6.
13. Kuznetsov А.V. Place of the Baltic States in the geographical segments of the largest TNCs in Europe // Baltic region. – 2015. – No. 1 (23).
14. Leonid Kravchuk: Ukraine begins to fall apart. See: – URL: http://russian.rt.com/article/70244.
15. Litvin: We are well tailored, but poorly sewn. May 20, 2011. See: – URL: http://24tv.ua/ru/litvin_myi_horosho_skroenyi_no_ploho_sshityi_n95897.
16. Manukov S. Tokyo is trying to break into India on high-speed trains // Expert. 2016. November 12. See: – URL: http://expert.ru/2016/11/12/zheleznodorozhnyie-vojnyi/.
17. Interregional forum of the All-Russian popular front on October 26, 2016. See: – URL: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/53148.
18. Mikhailenko A.N. Leadership in contemporary international relations // Obosrevatel – Observer. – 2012. – No. 5.
19. Mikhailenko A.N. Federalization of Ukraine as a means to overcome its deep regional differentiation // Almanac Crimea. – 2013. – No. 1.
20. Mikhailenko A.N., Kozhuhov А.V. The dominant factor in Russian-Afghan relations // Ethno-socium and interethnic culture. – 2014. – No. 10 (76).
21. Putin V.V. Russia and the changing world // Moscow News. February 27, 2012.
22. Radbil T.B. On some types of language conceptualization of such models as: part/ whole, element / set and component/system in Russian proposed-case combinations // Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta named after H. A. Lobachevsky. – 2015. – No. 2-2.
23. Ryazantsev S.V., Pismennaya E.E., Tkachenko M.F. Formation of the Central Asian segment of the Eurasian migration subsystem // International processes. – 2013. – Vol. 11. – No. 34.
24. Seliverstova O.A. Foreign language policy as an integral component of the concept of soft power: comparative aspect // Bulletin of Moscow state regional University. Series: linguistics. – 2015. – No. 4.
25. Soldatova Yu. Internal factors of perception in the system of bilateral relations on the example of Russia and Italy // Science and World. – 2015. – Vol. 3. – No. 11 (27).
26. Telephone conversation with President-elect of the United States of America Donald trump November 14, 2016. See – URL: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/53255.
27. Troitsky М.А. The China factor in Russian-American relations/ Comparative politics. – 2014. – No. 1.
28. Khalanskiy I.V. China's policy in the post-Soviet segment of Central Asia: solving the border issue // Bulletin of BIST (Bashkir Institute of social technologies). – 2015. – No. 3 (28).
29. Krauthammer Ch. After a mere 25 years, the triumph of the West is over // The Washington Post. December 1, 2016.
30. Vinocur J. Anti-Americanism across the continent // The Wall Street Journal. November 7, 2016.
KRUT’KO A.A. Russia and Kyrgyzstan Aim to Deepen Eurasian Integration
A.A. KRUT’KO Ambassador of the Russian Federation in Kyrgyz Republic, working for the Doctor’s degree at the Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University, Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic
RUSSIA AND KYRGYZSTAN AIM TO DEEPEN EURASIAN INTEGRATION
The article considers the dynamics and perspective directions of development of Russian-Kyrgyz relations in the new conditions of Kyrgyzstan's accession to the Eurasian Economic Union, as well as possibilities for its participation in the project "One belt, one way".
Key words: foreign policy, diplomatic relations, integration processes, the Eurasian Economic Union, "One belt, one way," a strategic partnership, the great Eurasian partnership.
In the modern world, the foreign policy of the states is based on various ideological foundations: global leadership (USA), paternalism and protectionism (EU countries), equal partnership and regional integration based on it (SCO countries, EEU). Foreign policy approaches are fixed in the relevant doctrinal documents, such as the US National Security Strategy (2015), China's initiative "One belt, one way" (2013), the EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy (2016), the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation (2016), etc. Russia considers it a key task to deepen and expand integration within the EAEU in order to ensure stable development, comprehensive technological renewal, cooperation, increase the competitiveness of the economies of the EAEU member states and improve the living standards of their population . One of Russia's strategic partners is the Kyrgyz Republic, which shares this approach. Kyrgyzstan joined the EAEU in 2015 and considers membership in this Association as an opportunity to promote its national interests, which is reflected in the country's National Strategy for Sustainable Development for the Period from 2013 to 2017. This document names "reaching a new level of strategic cooperation with the Russian Federation as the main player in the growing range of integration processes within the CIS" as a priority direction of the Kyrgyz foreign policy.
The consolidated position of Russia and Kyrgyzstan on the issue of integration is based on more than two hundred years of the history of the formation of strong mutual contacts and cooperation between the peoples, which was formed in the difficult historical conditions. In March 2017, Russia and Kyrgyzstan celebrated the 25th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations in the new historical conditions and confirmed the format of allied relations complemented by equal participation in the Eurasian Economic Union and prospects for other large-scale integration projects.
We wish to remind that the first diplomatic contacts between our countries were established 230 years ago, in the second half of the XIX century our peoples formed a single united state . The creative work of the two peoples was interrupted by the First World War and the tragic events in Semirechye in 1916. In 1917, the Provisional Government decided to allocate one million rubles for the restoration of destroyed farms and buildings in the Semirechensk region. Later, in 1921-1927, Soviet Russia took a number of organizational and financial measures to return life in Central Asia to normal. All criminal cases against participants of the 1916 revolt were stopped, the Red Army expelled all foreign aggressors engaged in slave trade and opium smuggling from the territory of Kyrgyzstan. With the active participation of Mikhail Frunze, a native of the city of Pishpek, the Soviet government has bought back and returned from China to homeland the Kirghiz refugees and slaves. Special points were organized where Kyrgyz returnees were provided with food and clothing at the state expense. All necessary supplies were sent to the region: food, grain, building materials for the restoration of destroyed farms, etc., everything that was necessary for the arrangement of normal life .
The uprising of 1916 is a common tragedy of our peoples, which cannot be crossed out of history. Therefore, it is symbolic that on the centenary of the event, in 2016, the presidents of Russia, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia honored the victims by laying flowers at the memorial to the victims of the 1916 uprising in Ata-Beyit, national historic and memorial complex.
During the Soviet era, Kyrgyzstan began to gain its statehood. In the early 1920s, its territory was included in the Turkestan Republic, after the dissolution of which in 1924 it became an Autonomous Region of the RSFSR. As part of the Soviet Union, the Kyrgyz Autonomous Region received comprehensive assistance in the formation of the new Soviet state apparatus and strengthening of the Kyrgyz economy . Special attention was paid to the creation and introduction of the Kyrgyz alphabet, based on the Cyrillic alphabet.
In 1936, the Kyrgyz SSR was formed. The most important national economic task of the young republic during that period was the development of agriculture and industry. Ambitious projects were implemented by the joint efforts of professionals arriving from Russia and the local population. It was then that the foundation was laid for further economic recovery. Reforms have been carried out aimed at the transition to a settled way of life for a large part of the nomadic population and at improving the welfare of population in general. In the area of agriculture, livestock and crop production were given priority. A separate difficult task was the development of the irrigation system of Kyrgyzstan. In the industry, the focus was on the sugar and coal industries. A striking result of two decades of cultural revolution was the Decade of Kyrgyz Art in Moscow, the capital of the USSR, in 1939.
However, the peaceful creative life was soon disrupted by the attack of Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union. The great Patriotic War became a serious test for all the peoples of the Soviet Union. Kyrgyzstan has made a significant contribution to the common cause of victory over the enemy. The Republic has accepted the evacuated population of the RSFSR, the Kirghiz mothers sheltered disadvantaged children of besieged Leningrad. More than 30 industrial enterprises were transferred to Kyrgyzstan, new plants and factories were built. Thanks to close cooperation with the local population it became possible in record time to resume the production of a wide range of civilian and military products, which ultimately allowed gaining victory over the formidable enemy.
More than 360 thousand Kyrgyzstanis side by side with other peoples of the Soviet Union fought against the world evil on all fronts of the war. They formed the legendary 316th Panfilov Division, then, the 8th Guards Division, the valiant soldiers of which gave their lives in the battle for Moscow. Six soldiers of the division were awarded the title of the Hero of the Soviet Union. In total, 74 Kyrgyzstanis got the Hero title and 21 veterans became full knights of the Order of Glory.
After the victory in that terrible war, the Soviet people were forced to re-raise the agriculture and industry of our common country, to develop science and culture, to build roads, power stations, hospitals, schools and theaters, to create parks. It was true for the Kyrgyz SSR, which in 1950-1960 made a big step forward in economic and socio-cultural life. On the basis of industrial facilities evacuated during the war, rapid industrialization began in the Republic. Coal and food industry developed successfully. Mechanization of agriculture along with significant investments of the Soviet Union’s center in the irrigation system of Kyrgyzstan led to an increase in the volume of cotton production. In order to meet the increased needs of the national economy in electricity, new hydroelectric power stations, in particular Toktogul HPP, were built.
The 1970-1980s were marked by the manufacture of new high-tech products, some of which were exported abroad. Particular attention was paid to the preservation of the unique natural complex of the lake Issyk-Kul basin. During the ninth five-year plan, mining and processing of rare earth metals were launched in Kyrgyzstan.
During the time when Kyrgyziya was one of the USSR republics, the educational level of its population has increased significantly, thanks to the Soviet power, it made a civilizational leap. The Republic has developed a system of training of national scientists, the Kyrgyz state university and the Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz SSR were opened. The cultural traditions of the Kyrgyz people, enriched by cooperation with the creative intelligentsia of other Union republics, became the basis for the creation of new bright works of art. Books by Ch. Aitmatov gained world fame.
On August 31, 1991, the Supreme Council of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan adopted Declaration of Independence. On March 20, 1992, diplomatic relations between Russia and Kyrgyzstan were established and on June 10 of the same year Treaty of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance was signed . The Treaty defined the status of the parties as friendly states, building relations among themselves on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, and enshrined the obligations of the parties to coordinate foreign policy, to cooperate in ensuring a joint defense policy, to develop equal and mutually beneficial cooperation in the field of economy, to coordinate actions in the field of economic reforms.
For more than 25 years, Russia and Kyrgyzstan have been living and developing in new political, social and economic conditions as sovereign states. Formation of statehood, sovereignty, independence and building a new society never go easily. On this way, there are difficulties, mistakes and crisis phenomena. All these years our states closely cooperated and built bilateral relations not only because of the common history and long life in one state, but also for achieving the common goal: construction of fair society and wellbeing of our people.
In 2000, the Declaration on Eternal Friendship, Alliance and Partnership between the Russian Federation and the Kyrgyz Republic was adopted, it reflected the intention of the two peoples to continue centuries-old cooperation in the new environment . With the coming to power of President Vladimir Putin and President of Kyrgyzstan Atambayev, cooperation between the two countries gained additional impetus for further rapprochement.
In the current world situation, the important factor which allows quickly and in a fiduciary manner resolve the emerging issues is the relationship of mutual respect and openness established between the President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Kyrgyzstan A.Sh. Atambayev. Of special interest is intensification of a comprehensive political dialogue, in 2017, Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Bishkek twice. The Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev also visited Kyrgyzstan and in April, 2017, negotiations of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the two states took place in Moscow. There is an active dialogue between other ministries and departments and also contacts within the framework of parliamentary diplomacy.
The ongoing level of political cooperation is quite understandable, as the issues of human and citizen's rights are of crucial importance. Suffice it to say that today more than 300 thousand Russians live in Kyrgyzstan and about 1 million Kyrgyz people live and work in Russia either temporarily or permanently.
The decision on Kyrgyzstan to join the Eurasian Economic Union "is the result of great joint integration work" . At the stage of understanding and preparation for accession to the EAEU, Russia provided the Kyrgyz partners with maximum assistance in matters of comfortable joining the Union. Russia proposed and all member countries of the EAEC agreed to provide Kyrgyzstan with economic preferences. The Kyrgyz Republic has joined the EEU on special transient conditions. From October 2015, it receives 1.9% of all amounts of import customs duties of the Eurasian Union, which is much greater than its economic weight in the Union .
The statement of the Eurasian Economic Commission notes that "accession to the EAEU opens new prospects for Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyzstan's accession gives a new impetus to the development of the Union's potential. Integrated union strengthens its position in the global economic architecture" .
At the end of 2016, the GDP growth of Kyrgyzstan amounted to 3.8% compared to the previous year and reached 458 billion soms. In the first quarter of 2017, the growth amounted to 7.8% compared to January-March 2016 . The 180-million consumer market of the EAEU has fully opened for the Republic. Kyrgyzstanis are realizing their opportunities to get higher education in the EAEU countries and work on equal terms with the citizens of these countries. Kyrgyzstanis working in Russia today have equal rights with Russians without any discrimination. They do not have to obtain a work permit or patents of the Russian Federation, a major achievement was the introduction of the rules on the mutual recognition of diplomas in almost all professions. In addition, the national regime in the field of social security, including medical care, is applied to labor migrants, work is underway to harmonize the pension legislation of the EAEU member states.
The Russian-Kyrgyz Development Fund with an authorized capital of US$ 500 million is an effective tool for promoting mutually beneficial projects. The Fund was established in order to promote economic cooperation between the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation, modernization and development of the economy of the Kyrgyz Republic and an effective use of opportunities arising from the participation of the parties in the Eurasian economic integration. "The main objective of the Fund is to finance, on preferential terms, projects aimed at the development of new high-tech products, technical re-equipment and creation of competitive industries based on the best available technologies, as well as support for import-substituting and export-oriented industries. The advent of the Russian-Kyrgyz Development Fund created in the country such conditions for the development that do not exist in any post-Soviet country" . As of 17 March 2017, 681 projects worth US$ 211 million have been approved. The funds are directed to the development of the food industry, transport, logistics, construction and agro-industrial complex throughout Kyrgyzstan .
There are additional opportunities for the development of mutual trade and investment cooperation provided by the export and investment development institutes established in Russia, such as Vnesheconombank, the Russian export center, the Russian Agency for export credit insurance and Roseximbank.
With the support of Russia, within the framework of the allocated US$ 200 million, measures are being taken to equip customs posts, checkpoints and laboratories with the necessary equipment.
In the framework of bilateral cooperation and participation in the work of integration associations, Russia provides Kyrgyzstan with comprehensive assistance. Many projects have been and are being implemented. As an example, the Russian Gazprom operates under the gasification program of Kyrgyzstan and plans to invest in this business about 100 billion rubles until 2030. As part of the program "Gazprom for children," the Russian company has already put into operation five sports and recreation complexes in the Republic and plans to build eleven more .
Russia also supports the Kyrgyz state budget. From 2009 to 2016, US$ 375 million was allocated for this purpose. Debts of KR are written off, in 2012 a lumpsum of US$ 300 million was written off. During the upcoming state visit of the President of Kyrgyzstan A. Sh. Atambayev to Russia on June 20, 2017, it is planned to sign an agreement on cancellation of another US $240 of debt, which will reduce the amount of foreign debt of the Kyrgyz Republic to 53% of its GDP .
Kyrgyzstan acquires Russian oil products at domestic prices because they are supplied on a duty free basis. Since 2010 only, the savings for the Kyrgyz Republic amounted to US$ 1.8 billion.
Many-sided assistance is also provided through international organizations. Thus, the integrated development project of Naryn region worth US$ 3.5 million has been completed with Russian funding through UNDP, which launched hundreds of small industrial, agricultural and irrigation projects, as a result of which the villagers received jobs and specialties and improved their welfare. Through the same international organization, Russia allocated US$ 3.5 million for a similar project in the Osh region. Russia provided US$ 1.5 million for a project to strengthen the tourism cluster in the Issyk-Kul region. Through UNICEF, Russia is financing a project to improve access to water, sanitation and hygiene, which covers 90 schools with 22 thousand pupils. A grant of US$ 450 thousand was provided to UNDP for a project to train Kyrgyz specialists in the field of cattle identification.
Kyrgyzstan receives great assistance from the UN world food program. Only through this international organization, Russia has allocated more than US$ 50 million for projects in the Kyrgyz Republic, of which US$ 12 million was provided within the framework of the UN project to improve school meals. Today, 114 thousand schoolchildren in 266 schools receive free daily hot breakfasts made from Russian products on Russian equipment. This has significantly reduced the incidence of intestinal infections in children. In 2017, 67 more schools in different regions of Kyrgyzstan will join this project.
In order to improve the efficiency of social protection of vulnerable segments of the population since 2014, about a thousand projects have been implemented in 54 rural districts, food aid was provided to 197 thousand villagers, 572 km of irrigation networks have been restored, 47 thousand hectares of agricultural land have been put into operation.
During the official visit of the President of the Russian Federation V. V. Putin to Bishkek on February 28, 2017, the Federal service for supervision of consumer rights protection and the Ministry of health of the Kyrgyz Republic signed a Memorandum, according to which Kyrgyzstan will be provided with material and technical assistance in countering the spread of infectious diseases and their prevention and training of Kyrgyz personnel in this sphere.
The priority direction of humanitarian cooperation is the expansion of cooperation between Russian educational institutions and educational organizations of Kyrgyzstan, increasing the level of teaching in Russian, ensuring the availability of Russian educational resources. In this regard, training courses are organized annually for teachers of Russian language and literature, as well as teachers of other subjects. Last year, more than one thousand Kyrgyz teachers raised their professional qualifications at the courses of various formats. In 2016, the Kyrgyz side received more than three thousand copies of educational, methodological and fiction books, multimedia and visual AIDS. The leadership of Kyrgyzstan shows constant and close attention to the problem of preserving and expanding the position of the Russian language.
Annually more than 400 budget places are allocated on the state line for Kyrgyz students, and the total number of Kyrgyz students in Russia exceeds 16 thousand people, of which 5 thousand are trained at the expense of the Russian budget.
Interregional relations with Kyrgyzstan are supported by more than 60 regions of the Russian Federation, more than a dozen agreements on trade, economic, scientific, technical and cultural cooperation. The most active cooperation is developing with Moscow, Tatarstan, Altai Krai, Orenburg, Chelyabinsk, Sverdlovsk, Samara, Novosibirsk and Volgograd regions .
This year, the Kyrgyz Republic chairs in the EAEU, which will allow our Kyrgyz partners to continue their work on the constructive strengthening of their position in the organization. After the entry of the Kyrgyz Republic in the EEU, the President of the KR Almazbek Atambayev said: "Kyrgyzstan has joined the Eurasian Economic Union, and the first steps taken as a full member in this organization indicate that we’ve made the right choice" .
Today we are sure to say that Russia and Kyrgyzstan are unequivocally interested in further deepening the Eurasian integration and in the possibility of expanding its scope. The idea of pairing the EAEU projects with the economic belt of the Silk Road and transferring it into practice is consistently supported by both countries. Speaking on May 14, 2017 in Beijing at the opening ceremony of the international forum "One belt, one way", Russian President Vladimir Putin said: "... I believe that the addition of the potential of such integration formats as the EAEU, "One belt, one way", the Shanghai cooperation organization, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, can become the basis for the formation of a large Eurasian partnership" . He stressed that Russia sees the future of the Eurasian partnership not just as the establishment of new ties between states and economies, "it must change the political and economic landscape of the continent, bring Eurasia peace, stability, prosperity and a fundamentally new quality of life. And in this respect, greater Eurasia is not an abstract geopolitical scheme, but, without any exaggeration, a truly civilizational project looking forward to the future" .
President of the Kyrgyz Republic A.Sh. Atambayev agreed with this view and noted in particular that "the spread of globalization and intensification of integration processes carry great hopes, long-term prospects and at the same time difficult problems" . It is obvious that further successful strengthening of the strategic partnership established between Russia and Kyrgyzstan is the key to solving these problems.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1. Voropaeva V., Dzhunushaliev D., Ploskikh V. From the history of Kyrgyz-Russian relations (XVIII-XX centuries). – Bishkek, 2001.
2. Head of the Russian-Kyrgyz Development Fund: we do not break the banks' business, but develop it: Interview (14.02.2017) // See. – URL: http://www.interfax.ru/interview/549815.
3. Gazprom will allocate 100 billion rubles for the program of gasification of Kyrgyzstan (28.02.2017) // See. – URL: http://www.tatar-inform.ru/news/2017/02/28/541402/.
4. Declaration on Eternal Friendship, Alliance and Partnership between the Russian Federation and the Kyrgyz Republic // Federal Legislation of Russia. 2000 // See. – URL: http://lawrussia.ru/texts/page29_russia_2000.htm.
5. Treaty of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kyrgyzstan. June 10, 1992 // Vedomosti SND and VS RF. –1992. – 22.10. – No.42.
6. EDB forecasts the GDP growth of Kyrgyzstan in the 2017-2019. (12.04.2017) // See. – URL: http://www.aenkg.info/news/view/2796.html.
7. Kyrgyzstan expects Russia to write off a lumpsum of US$ 240 million of its debt. (24.04.2017) // See. – URL: https://ria.ru/economy/20170424/1493012661.html.
8. Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation. Approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin of Nov. 30, 2016. No. 640 // See. – URL: http://www.mid.ru/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2542248.
9. Kyrgyzstan joined Eurasian Economic Union (12.08.2015) // See. – URL: http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/nae/news/Pages/12-08-2015-1.aspx.
10. International Forum «One belt, one way» (14.05.2017) // See. – URL: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/54491.
11. National Strategy for Sustainable Development of the Kyrgyz Republic for the Period from 2013 to 2017. Adopted by the Decree of the President of Kyrgyz Republic of Jan. 21, 2013. No. 11 // See. – URL: http://www.president.kg/ru/news/ukazy/1466.
12. Address by President Almazbek Atambayev to the participants of the IV Kyrgyz-Russian Interregional Conference. 22 September 2015 // See. – URL: http://www.president.kg/ru/news.
13. The President of the Kyrgyz Republic expressed readiness to mate the concept of "One belt, one way" with "Taza coom." (15.05.2017) // See. – URL: https://rus.azattyk.org/a/28489191.html.
14. Russia – Kyrgyzstan: Stages of strategic partnership: from the beginning to sovereignty: Documents and materials / Compliers: Bedelbayev A. B., Voropaeva V. A., Karymsakova A. A. and other. – Bishkek: KRSU publishing House, 2011.
15. Russian-Kyrgyz Development Fund (information on the activities of the RFKRDF) // See. – URL: http://www.rkdf.org/ru/o_nas.
16. Russian-Kyrgyz economic relations: a dossier (28.02.2017) // See. – URL: http://tass.ru/info/4056105.
17. Frunze M.V. Unknown and forgotten: articles, memoirs, documents and letters. – M.: Nauka, 1991.
18. What can the EAEU give to small and medium-sized businesses? (24.02.2017) // See. – URL: http://www.region.kg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2259.
KURBONOVA Z.M. Enclaves in Central Asia: Myths and Realities
Z.M. KURBONOVA Сandidate of political sciences, working for a doctorate’s degree at the Institute of philosophy, politology and law named after A. Bahovaddinov, Dushanbe, Republic of Tajikistan
ENCLAVES IN CENTRAL ASIA: MYTHS AND REALITIES
The article is devoted to the appearance, formation and development of enclaves in the territory of the Central Asian republics. How have these anomalous areas appeared in the region? How have the peoples of these closely intertwined states managed to live and cross enclave and exclave territories for so many years? And after all, who benefits from "pulling the rubber" with a resolution of these issues? Who and how is trying to disintegrate these states? In one article it is not easy to analyze the whole situation and problems that have accumulated for years, but still, the author makes an attempt to answer these questions.
Key words: Central Asian enclaves, resolution of enclave problems, unresolved border problems, "apple of discord".
And so, it is difficult to say exactly how and when enclaves appeared on the territory of Central Asia. But, if we look through the leaves of history, moreover, history that is not so stale in centuries of dust, it can be concluded that majority of disputed border problems had arisen during the time of the Soviet Union. As the past shows, the Soviet Union was a great power, one big friendly family, where all peoples and nations were tolerant and lived in the "dream" that ideology would never fall. It is indisputable that the top authorities looked at the Central Asian region through "pink glasses." They saw small neighboring countries with similar roots, almost identical peoples and nations, similar culture and traditions, one religion, intertwined by bonds of brotherhood and kinship. But it was not that simple, these small neighboring countries, although somewhat identical, each has its own history, culture and traditions. Each of these countries is a mystery in itself and, accordingly, each culture and tradition is peculiar in its own way. And, since we are back in the near future, it is vital to draw a little from it.
At the moment, there are eight enclaves in the Central Asian region, which belong to Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Having learned a little from history, it becomes obvious that the process of delimitation of state borders between these countries took place during the national-territorial delimitation of the Turkestan region in 1924-1925. The process, for various reasons, lasted until 1927, it had shortcomings in terms of taking into account the geographical, economic, cultural and ethnic characteristics of the population living there, but officially it passed all the necessary procedures.
The division of boundaries practically was not based on the national principle, so enclave territories in these countries appeared at the inter-ethnic level. This is how the main enclaves of Central Asia look like.
Drawing. 1. Enclaves of the Ferghana valley
Roughly speaking, the territorial division among the countries lasted until 1957, when Moscow set up a parity commission to establish a demarcation line between the republics of the Soviet Union. The work of the commission was nicely presented officially, but in fact it failed to achieve its goal and to fulfill the tasks that were vital for the republics, while still in the USSR. At that time, at the heyday of Soviet ideology, no one could have imagined the collapse of such a great power. Of course, there is an opinion that it is highly likely that Moscow wanted to "always keep [the republics] on a short leash" and "don't let go of the reins". Accordingly, by growing "the apple of discord," it could always have the rights of "the main taster permitted to cut off this or that part of it".
After the collapse of the USSR, the young Central Asia states faced acute problems of delimitation of state borders, which to this day remain on the agenda of almost all countries of the region. In the early 1990s, young states, as independent subjects of international law, learned to take their first steps on their own. Accordingly, each of the post-Soviet countries faced difficulties and problems. On its way to independence Tajikistan faced most difficulties. Due to external factors and threats, a young and inexperienced state, whose geopolitical location is really unfortunate, survived an unforgettable civil war, which not only destroyed the country and its people, but for 20 years pushed the country into chaos and crisis. Despite all the difficulties, since the 2000s, the countries have made repeated attempts to resolve the issues of disputed and enclave territories. Many territorial disputes have been resolved, but the enclave issue remains a serious stumbling block in the foreign policy of these countries .
How did enclaves and exclaves in Central Asia emerge? If we look at the Ferghana valley, we find there Sokh district (236 sq.km), the largest enclave in the world, belonging to Uzbekistan and located within the territory of Kyrgyzstan. Along with Sokh, Uzbekistan has two more exclaves in Kyrgyzstan: Shakhimardan and Chongara (Northern Sokh). An unusual feature of the Sokh is that the vast majority of its population are Tajiks, so that the ethnic composition of the enclave does not coincide with either the mother or the surrounding states. Sokh is isolated from the rest of Uzbekistan by the territory of Kyrgyzstan (Batken region, between Botkin and Kadamzhai regions) and is an enclave in relation to Kyrgyzstan and an exclave in relation to Uzbekistan. In addition, Sokh consists of two parts: Northern Sokh (Chongara, Kalacha, Lower Sokh) and Southern Sokh. This exclave appeaqred in 1955, the specific causes of this are unknown. From history we know that Sokh was leased to Uzbekistan for 70 years and since the collapse of the USSR has been a stumbling block in relations between the two countries. There were repeated attempts to connect the exclave with the maternal state by creating a corridor, but all the attempts failed. Accordingly, there are many problems in this exclave, the main one is inter-ethnic conflicts and tensions, secondary ones are water shortage, demographic explosion, multiple checkpoints and corruption .
It should be noted that the Central Asian region is located in the highlands and tensions are aggravated by the complexity of geopolitics. In this regard, the construction of high-tech roads and corridors is still an unrealizable dream.
A similar situation and identical problems exist in the Shakhimardan enclave (Jangal – 90 sq.km) also located in the Fergana Region of Uzbekistan, which is located in the valley on the Northern slopes of the Alai range at an altitude of 1550 meters. Geographically, together with a small village of Jordan, it forms an enclave surrounded by the lands of the Batken region of Kyrgyzstan. Its ethnic composition is mainly Uzbek and the distance to the mother country is about 17 km .
Exactly the same situation develops in the enclave of the Northern Sokh, consisting of Chongara (or Kalacha), a village in Rishtan district of Fergana Region of Uzbekistan, the population of which is mainly Kyrgyz. This disputed territory is a hot spot of conflict in relations between the two countries. Its main problem is mining of borders by Uzbekistan, which regularly causes deaths among the civilians . Another Uzbek enclave is Gangal located in the Batken region of Kyrgyzstan, whose territory is only 1 sq.km.
It is common knowledge that enclave and exclave territories are always the source of political and international conflict situations, and in this regard, the priorities of the foreign policy of the bordering states should be signing of agreements and treaties, resolution of these issues in a constructive manner, an exchange of enclaves and a compromise as a last resort.
So, having considered the enclaves of Uzbekistan located in the territory of neighboring Kyrgyzstan, it should be noted that there are also enclaves and exclaves of the neighboring states in the territory of Uzbekistan. One of them is Barak, an exclave of Kyrgyzstan (4 sq. km), 60% of whose population are Kyrgyz and the rest are Uzbek. Barak is located in Kara-Suusk district of Osh region of Kyrgyzstan and is geographically surrounded by Kurgantepa district of Andijan region of Uzbekistan. It is separated from the main territory of Kyrgyzstan by a 1.5 km wide strip of land. Residents of this exclave are constantly experiencing great difficulties when crossing the Kyrgyz-Uzbek state border. Barak is practically isolated from the mother state. Such isolation has undermined the rule of law and order in the region and deprived its population of means of livelihood. In this way Uzbekistan is pushing a mass migration of the Kyrgyz from Barak and immigration of Uzbeks in the village.
As for the enclaves and exclaves of Tajikistan, they are: Sarvak, an enclave in Uzbekistan, a large enclave of Vorukh and a small enclave of Elm in Kyrgyzstan. Formation of Tajikistan enclaves and exclaves, their development and the resolution of their problems within the "triangle" depend on the competent approach of the heads of states. For the moment, it remains to hope for the best.
According to the author, the delimitation of the borders of the Central Asian region will stay in the "box" for a long time. In any case, if the delimitation process in this region is successfully completed, it will not remove the remaining problems, namely the issue of enclave territories. The high conflict potential of the Fergana valley will remain relevant and unresolved on the agenda. Currently, this "Gordian knot" has not been unleashed and, for various reasons, the leaders of the neighbouring countries have so far refrained from touching it. In this regard, enclave issues in the Ferghana valley are a time bomb and can at any time become a "detonator of all kinds of conflicts".
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1. Enclaves of the Ferghana valley. See – URL: www.wikipedia.org.
2. Vinokurov E.Yu. Theory of enclaves. – Kaliningrad: Terra Baltica, 2007.
3. Medvedev N.P. CIS: problems of post-Soviet reintegration // Eurasian Union: issues of international relations. – 2015. – No. 1-2.
4. Medvedev N.P. Ethno-political regionalistics in the CIS // Eurasian Union: issues of international relations. – 2016. – No. 2.
5. Pan’kova O.V. Country within the country: how to understand it? See – URL: www.fb.ru.
6. Sokh district. See: – URL: www.wikipedia.org.
7. Chongara of the Ferghana Region. See – URL: www.wikipedia.org.
8. Shakhimardan distrct. See – URL: www.wikipedia.org.