The need for redefinition of interests
---toward establishment of a Central Asian version of ARF

After the fall of the Soviet empire Central Asian countries were urged to reform themselves to introduce democracy and market economy. Democracy and market economy were only gradually established in Western Europe and America, taking much time and bloodshed. Any attempt to achieve these two goals in a short time would incur a total chaos, as it was the case in Russia in early 1990s. Therefore, Central Asian countries merely vacillated between major powers depending upon when and what they provide to them. In their eyes there was no country in the world, on whose assistance they can totally rely upon to jump into an unknown world of freedom and democracy. Now, having seen that the USA does not possess a coherent strategy for the benefit of the current leaders in the region, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have made decisive their tilt toward Russia. Kyrghyztan may soon follow their suit. The lacuna created by the break-up of the Soviet Union is now being filled up by Russia. And this incurs the following questions.

Firstly, the Central Asian countries will have to discuss really well what their true interests are. Their dependence on Russia entails a danger of a renewed subjugation in view of the unchanged attitude of the majority of the Russians toward Central Asia as their legitimate outpost. The absence of the American influence might someday allow a wanton rivalry between Russia and China in this region, which would harm security in this region. And above all democratization and market economy should be established anyway to become on per with rapidly growing outside world.

Secondly, Japan, the USA and the EU need to redefine their interests and goals in this region. They may well leave this region at the mercy of the rivalry among major regional powers, but then their influence in the eastern half of the Eurasian continent will be substantially reduced. China may possess some political weight in Kyrghyztan, but in other Central Asian countries her influence is largely limited to economy. Most Chinese today cannot speak Russian, the common language in ex-Soviet sphere, and their mentality is different in spite of the resemblance in face. China will be accepted in Central Asia as long as and as much as they pay money to them. Russia, too, although she gladly accepted the overture of President Karimov, will not be able to shoulder all the expenses which are needed to maintain stability and develop economy in Central Asia.

All these indicate the necessity for a serious international cooperation. In Europe the CSCE greatly contributed in securing the status quo and security in the region. In Eastern Asia the ARF (ASEAN Regional Forum) has been addressing a similar question with participation of Japan, China, the USA, Russia, South Korea, North Korea and other countries. Central Asia has Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). But its activity is mainly economy, while a tangible progress in economic cooperation becomes possible only with Chinese money. To embark upon a more rapid construction of economic infrastructure and to ensure the security Central Asia needs either to enlarge SCO to include Japan, the USA and the EU or to establish a new international framework like ARF. Obviously such an initiative should come from the part of Central Asian countries themselves.

Until recently the Japanese Government was considering initiating common projects of infrastructure building, the effect of which would encompass the territory of several Central Asian countries. Such undertakings would accelerate the tendency to deeper integration among Central Asian states, an outcome to be welcomed in Japan. The Central Asian version of ARF may well incorporate the Japanese initiative under its umbrella.
The Central Asian countries should continue their efforts for a genuine democratization and economic reform. And the industrialized countries should continue to help them, keeping in mind the following specifics in Central Asia. In ex-socialist states, namely, where all (but limited) resources were monopolized by the state, there is no real basis for a democratic opposition. The medieval despotism augmented by Russian and Soviet autocracy engendered an atmosphere in which both the elite and the masses do not listen to a “democratic” leader. They tend to consider such a leader to be a weak guy, an invitation to unhampered fighting to extract as much as possible. Some intellectuals aspire to freedom and democracy, but the common people do not support them, suspecting that the intellectuals are concerned only with their own liberty and well-being (unfortunately, the common people turn to be right in many cases). To the opinion of the masses the national wealth should not be monopolized by private persons. Only public ownership of property would guarantee people`s well-being, they believe. (change the line here)

Under these circumstances any opposition leaders, after toppling an authoritarian regime, may well end up establishing yet another authoritarian and corrupt government, dividing up property for their own advantage. Unlike some Americans who assume that these conditions do not stand in the way of vigorous efforts to impose democracy and a market economy, Japanese tend to be cautious in pressing for far-reaching reforms that do not take these conditions into account.

The world should possess a more exact knowledge about Central Asian society. The Andijan incident, for example, might have been caused not by religious extremism (as the Uzbek authorities claim) or by the “wide-spread dissatisfaction of the people with a slow pace in economic reforms” (as some Western media claim). Islam in Central Asia is in general moderate, and fanaticism is rare. People are dissatisfied not with the “slow pace” of economic reforms, but with the early results of the reforms: a constant rise in communal payments and unemployment because of the break-up of collective farms. In this vein the background of the Andijan incident may have been not so much ideological as materialistic. This area is prone to illegal import of Chinese commodities and illegal export of Uzbek cotton and oil, and may be involved in narcotics traffic. The change of the Andijan local governor and the ensuing attempt to revamp the local economic interests may well have served as a trigger of the Andijan incident.

All this suggests that the world community should be more careful in approaching the ex-socialist states. Many reforms, contrary to the general understanding in the West, are not welcomed by the local people who are accustomed to be taken care of by their government. Usually fewer than ten percent of the total population is eager to start their own ventures, utilizing newly acquired freedom (and in many cases their initiative tends to be stymied by envy and suspicion in the society and extortion by the officials). A hasty attempt to enforce reforms will exacerbate the economic hardship, bringing political chaos in which quasi “opposition” politicians engage in an endless battle for ownership of the properties. A serious discussion is needed to reexamine development strategies of the ex-socialist countries.

Central Asia as one of the centers of world history deserves independence, and its people deserve a better and more democratic way of life. Japan would be willing to help them to achieve these goals inasmuch as the presence of an integrated power in this region would serve the interests of Japan. Even if Japan may adjust her policy to the region now, her long-term objectives are likely to endure.

The dominant force in Central Asia is not yet China but the USA in the sense that a fear of US intervention make Central Asian countries unite with Russia and China.

What Central Asian countries need most would be ①a guarantee not to touch the current regime, ②stability in Afghanistan and a transportation route via Pakistan to the Indian Ocean.

I think we can achieve it partly by strengthening cooperation between the Central Asian countries as was the case with ASEAN.

China is interested in Central Asia not only for energy resources, but also for ensuring security of their Xinqiang Province. Peace and stability around China will be a sine qua non for her for coming tens of years while they build the economy.

China is not seeking a hegemony in Central Asia. She would not care who is a master there,if stability is secured. A promotion of multilateralism coupled with US demonstration of her economic,moral and cultural power would work better.

Akio Kawato