Changing security threat perceptions in Central Asia

Abstract

and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Changing security threat perceptions in Central Asia KIRILL NOURZHANOV +This article discusses the current process of securitisation in Central Asia and identifies its convoluted and faulty nature as a factor impeding collective security action in the region. It uses the Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) as an explanatory tool and posits that security discourse in */ and about */ the five former Soviet republics is dominated by geopolitical grand strategy on the one hand and by particularist concerns about lack of democracy or transnational threats on the other. Issues of conventional security involving two or more states, such as territorial disputes or resource management, are pushed aside and rarely securitised at the official level. The article outlines conceptual and institutional reasons for this bias, and argues that unless inter-state tensions are properly analysed, debated and addressed, the prospects for security and stability in the region will remain grim. Dealing with threats in Central AsiaAfter gaining independence in 1991, five former Soviet Central Asian republics formed a distinct security complex. Faced with a multitude of military, societal, environmental and transnational threats, they have rarely managed to counter them in a cooperative and efficient manner. Despite their verbal commitment to the global fight against terrorism, their recent track record in this area is also unimpressive.This article will address the question of why a cooperative security system has failed to materialise in Central Asia over the past 16 years. It will argue that the absence of a realistic and objective threat assessment process has been a major factor. Security thinking in the region has been dominated by a focus on regime survival in individual countries on the one hand, and on the forceful imposition of the global security agenda on the other. This leaves little room for dealing with long-running inter-state tensions. Without resolving border issues, territorial disputes and conflicts over natural resources at the regional level, Central Asia will not have internal peace and stability nor be able to play a useful role in the international effort to defeat terrorism.

Ups and Downs in Foreign Policy of Uzbekistan towards Security Approach of Russia*

“…Once again after a century "Great Game" raised and determined the agenda of the countries in the region. Just this time the question changed as Nourzhanov (2009) quotes to Starr: the region will either come under the hegemony of an outside rival power -Russia, China, the US-or the region will be in chaos.…”

Rethinking Central Asia and its Security Issues

“…Nourzhanov notes the need to break away from a Western-derived threat paradigm that sees everything in terms of the great power rivalry commonly called the new great game and the main internal threat to regimes, namely insurgency. 86 While these threats surely exist, they hardly comprise the only challenges to Central Asian security. Thus he writes that, Conventional security problems rooted in border disputes, competition over water and mineral resources, ubiquitous enclaves and ethinic minorities, generate conflict potential in the region and are perceived as existential threats by the majority of the local population.…”

De-securitizing the “Silk Road”: Uzbekistan’s cooperation agenda with Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea in the post-Karimov era

“…However, with the death of Islam Karimov and the change in governmental priorities in Uzbekistan, the cooperation agenda with the aforementioned states has also changed. For a long time, the relations of these states with Uzbekistan have been held hostage to the security issues and the survival of Karimov’s style of governance under the pretext of the preservation of stability and security throughout the region (for problematization of this issue, Nourzhanov, 2009, pp. 85–104).…”