Author: Tiberio Graziani – 22/01/2024
Central Asia as an Oasis of Peace and Economic Cooperation
Tiberio Graziani – Chairman, Vision & Global Trends – International Institute for Global Analyses – Director of Geopolitica
Abstract: The paper examines the geopolitical dynamics of Central Asia in the context of global transformations. The author emphasizes the need to adapt to changing communication models influenced by digital technologies and advocates for an expanded, unbiased mental perspective in human and state relations. The author reflects on the post-Soviet era, characterizing the international system as critical and turbulent, marked by the emergence of new global players and the gradual decline of U.S. hegemony. Exploring Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “crisis arcs” concept and “The Grand Chessboard,” detailing the U.S.’s Eurasian geostrategy, the paper considers the tension between geopolitical conservative forces and new global actors shaping international politics. Central Asia, identified by Brzezinski as a potential geopolitical black hole, is urged to adopt a neutral stance, fostering its geopolitical identity as a crossroads between Russia, China, and Europe. Reflecting on the probable new multipolar or polycentric order, the author envisions areas vulnerable to becoming “crisis arcs” transforming into “islands of peace and cooperation.” Central Asia’s unique ethnocultural composition and geographical complexity position it as a space of co-prosperity and a continental hub. The paper concludes outlining historical responsibilities for young Central Asian states, emphasizing the importance of raising social and economic levels, consolidating regional relations, implementing infrastructure programs, adopting a multi-vector foreign policy, and enhancing cooperation for regional security.
Keywords: Central Asia, Geopolitical conservative forces, Multipolar World, Eurasian Cooperation
We live in a world undergoing rapid and profound transformation, a transformation that is particularly evident in the realm of international relations. Just as we are changing classical communication models due to new digital technologies, we must also equip ourselves to broaden our mental spectrum—without prejudices and with intellectual honesty—regarding not only human relations but also relations between states.
The collapse of the Soviet Union has bequeathed to us a highly critical and turbulent international system. After an initial phase known as the “unipolar moment” and the concurrent globalization of markets, we witnessed the economic and political rise of new global players (China and India) and new national states, the resilience of the Russian Federation after the tumultuous Eltsin era in the 90s, and the gradual loss of the hegemonic role of the United States.
The presence of new actors implies a redistribution of power globally. Refusing to accept the idea of such redistribution—that nations, once on the periphery of global decisions, can now co-decide with equal dignity the fate of the world—is a logical and political nonsense. Attempting to hinder this trend, simplistically referred to as multipolarity, a trend towards greater democratization of global decision-making, reflects arrogance and is a not insignificant source of the current crises in the world system. Moreover, obstructing this trend in the name of a singular interpretation of democracy, politics, and international economics centered around a particular definition of human rights, regardless of the historical experiences and political cultures of new regional and global actors, demonstrates a mental closedness unfit for the challenges of the present and future. In essence, preventing this trend expresses a rejection of the exchange of ideas and practices, the dialogue of civilizations, and unfortunately, constitutes a worrying logical and practical premise for clashes between civilizations and global turbulence.
In the last thirty years, so-called crisis arcs have increased in various geopolitical quadrants, with the most recent being the Russo-Ukrainian and Israeli-Palestinian crises. It is not coincidental that the term “crisis arcs” was used, a concept introduced by Zbigniew Brzezinski in the late 70s.
We all remember the fundamental work of Prof. Brzezinski, “The Grand Chessboard” (1997). This book exemplarily describes the most accomplished attempt by the United States to formulate a coherent hegemonic strategy at the expense of political entities in the Eurasian continental mass, as explicitly stated by the author himself in the introduction: “But, in the meantime, it is absolutely essential that no power emerges that can establish its dominance over Eurasia and thereby challenge America. The purpose of this book is precisely to formulate a broad and coherent Eurasian geostrategy.”
The tension between conservative forces, aiming to maintain their hegemony, and the growing influence of new global actors dramatically shapes current international politics.
In his book, the American political scientist (and also national security adviser to Carter) identified some regional areas likely to become “crisis arcs” in the near future. Among these, we remember the Caucasus region (Georgia), Central and Eastern Europe (Ukraine), Afghanistan, and particularly, the Central Asian region.
According to Brzezinski, the Central Asian region was susceptible to becoming the Balkans of Eurasia: a great geopolitical black hole. If, hypothetically, today, at the current historical moment, the countries of Central Asia, especially the two main ones in the area—Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan—aligned themselves with one of the two contenders, Russia or Ukraine/Western Bloc, and thus deviated from their traditional multi-vector foreign policy, the specter of plunging the entire Central Asian region into chaos—reminiscent of the bloody Balkan wars—risks becoming a dramatic reality.
Now, if we realistically adopt a different criterion, a paradigm based not on the U.S. hegemonic claim to obstruct the development and growth of any Eurasian country but on the idea of governing, in a shared manner, the process of democratization of global decisions, recognizing the strength and legitimacy of new global actors, then areas susceptible to becoming “crisis arcs” would transform into potential “islands of peace and cooperation,” at the crossroads of the new world order, desirable “gateways,” according to the definition of the American geopolitical scholar Saul Bernard Cohen.
In the U.S., some have pondered the role of their country in a multipolar world; among them, Professor Jeff Sachs, an economist at Harvard University and a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and the realist political scientist John Mearsheimer. It is worth mentioning Sachs. In his article dated April 13, 2023, titled “The Need for a New US Foreign Policy,” Sachs writes, “The aim of US foreign policy is a US-dominated world, in which the US writes the global trade and financial rules, controls advanced technologies, maintains military supremacy, and dominates all potential competitors. Unless US foreign policy is changed to recognize the need for a multipolar world, it will lead to more wars, and possibly World War III.” Professor Sachs reminds us that the U.S. constitutes only 4% of the world’s population and lacks the economic, financial, military, and technological capacities to dominate the remaining 96%.
Now, let’s return to the Central Asian region. Instead of becoming the Balkans of Eurasia, assuming a neutral stance in the current crisis between the West and Russia, it would begin to lay the groundwork for formulating its specific geopolitical identity and a more pronounced geo-economic function; it would become a true crossroads between Russia, China, and Europe.
The uniqueness of the Central Asian region lies in its diverse and heterogeneous ethnocultural composition, deeply rooted in a common Turkic cultural substrate. The geographical and ethnocultural complexity, the result of a long historical process, and the centrality among the major Eurasian countries, Russia and China, are factors that—within the framework of a new multipolar paradigm—define the geopolitical function of Central Asia in the new international order as a space of co-prosperity, a continental hub, a segment of the Mediterranean-Central Asian hinge.
For the current leadership of Central Asian countries—young national states of just about thirty years—finding their specific place in the new multipolar framework is both a challenge and a historical responsibility.
The historical task that awaits them is broad; it primarily involves:
- raising the social and economic level of the entire area and making it as balanced as possible regionally. This is a task whose responsibility currently falls mainly on the leadership of the two most structured countries in the entire area: Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.
- consolidating relations within the Central Asian region.
- initiating a comprehensive infrastructure program in agreement with the major regional actors.
- launching a joint multi-vector foreign policy that takes into account relations with Russia, China, Turkey, and Europe.
- strengthening cooperation with regional actors for more effective regional security.
In the immediate context of constructing their geopolitical identity and geo-economic function to make the Central Asian region an island of peace and cooperation, Central Asian leadership should seize the opportunity to participate in the peace process by supporting various ongoing initiatives, from negotiation-promoted ones by Turkey to those by the Vatican, China, South Africa, Brazil, and Indonesia.
All of this, in my opinion, is currently one of the prerequisites for the expansion and progress of industrial, economic, and financial cooperation processes in the entire Central Asian region.
(Adapted from the speech by Dr. Tiberio Graziani at the XVI Verona Eurasian Economic Forum – Samarkand, November 3-4, 2023)