Registan.net

Bertrand emailed a recently published chapter from the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung’s Compass 2020 project, which looks at Germany’s goals, role, and strategies in foreign relations. The chapter in question, by Reinhard Krumm, is titled, “Central Asia: The Struggle for Power, Energy and Human Rights” (pdf).

Krumm’s summary of post-independence political developments in Central Asia strikes me as a bit odd. He seems to be downplaying negatives, though they do get mentioned. For example, he calls the decisions by the Uzbek and Turkmen governments to not introduce rapid economic reform after independence initially successful. And since then, he says it has been… Well, he says nothing about that. He mentions economic instability following a few sentences about Kazakhstan being a success that implies that “authoritarian modernization” has been mostly successful and an assessment of the Uzbek and Turkmen economies as “doing well economically.” He also says that the countries have well-crafted constitutions with all the ingredients of modern democratic states. Krumm says that some criticize the documents as hollow, but that the government are proud of their Eastern democracy. No discussion of whether or not the documents are hollow ensues. Overall, it seems as if Krumm in this first section is trying to merely describe the way things are, but one does not come away with much. (He does make a few important points, such as the public’s placement of high value on stability and the reactiveness of regional governments, though.)

The rest makes for interesting reading. Krumm next provides a brief history of German engagement with Central Asia, that one can sum up as “more and better than anyone else in Europe.” He then provides two scenarios for the region’s political development. The first is a rosy, unrealistic one in which everything works out just dandy. The second, much more likely one, is that a political ice age will set in across Central Asia. Krumm says that this is much more likely if outside actors isolate any one government (whomever could he mean?).

Against the background of this scenario, which for the most part is very realistic, it must be explained to the governments that a political system can indeed survive in isolation but cannot generate any prosperity and political stability on a permanent basis. This underlines even more strongly the need for a foreign policy partnership which does not serve solely to reproach states for their deficiencies and to humiliate them, but rather to involve them in future steps for the good of the country. Here, projects promising success already in the short term and offering a win-win situation should be conceived right at the outset.

Krumm then lays out a hazy vision for German policy. Kazakhstan’s OSCE chair bid should be supported because it has potential for being a positive influence throughout the region. Beyond that, he says that Germany should clearly state its interests and only seek change through being a role model.

It is hard to imagine that this would work, or that the current leaders in some of the countries are all that interested in the good of the country. I agree with him that change can ultimately only come from within each country. But at the very least, engagement needs to include the advocacy of economic reforms that encourage business development, particularly in Uzbekistan. The Uzbek government has made abundantly clear it has no need for role models, and despite economic data showing tremendous growth, the Uzbek way has not done much for most Uzbeks. Even Russia is finding the need to encourage economic reforms in Uzbekistan, so one would certainly hope that Germany would do as much. Otherwise engagement is just about as likely to lead to an ice age as would isolation.

Stumble it!