Re‐evaluating US strategic priorities in the Caspian Region: balancing energy resource initiatives with terrorism containment

In the aftermath of September 11, US strategy has shifted in the Central Asian region from protecting the sovereignty of the southern post‐Soviet states to ensuring their stability in light of the dual impacts of energy development and the rising threat of Islamic terrorism. Although US–Russian cooperation has made strides, particularly concerning Russian acquiescence toward US and NATO military engagement in the region, geostrategic rivalry and conflicting economic goals have hindered a joint approach to initiatives regarding the region's energy development. While both agree on the goal of maximising Russian and Caspian gas and petroleum exports, US policy is increasingly prioritising Central Asian energy prosperity as a key factor in the region's ability to contain terrorism. Development of the region's energy resources has therefore become a critical US security concern. Yet, by failing to engage with Russia in a meaningful cooperation that could encourage Moscow to diversify its own energy export prospects, competition between the two powers is likely to reduce, rather than improve, the effectiveness of either in offering the Central Asian states the kind of support they need to strengthen their domestic profiles or withstand the incursion of terrorism.     

US Policy in Central Asia and Regional Security

The article focuses on American approaches to the problems of regional security and stability in post-Soviet Central Asia since the early 1990s. It discusses the priorities of US policies in Central Asia under the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and argues that the advancement of US interests in Central Asia requires a coherence between the region-wide and the country-level tiers of American policies. Furthermore, it is argued that since the mid-1990s the development of bilateral relations between Washington and Central Asian countries has not been accompanied by a region-wide policy aimed at reducing security risks in Central Asia. The paper also discusses implications of US activism in Central Asia for long-term regional stability.     

Russia as a ‘virtual great power’: Implications for its declining role in European and Eurasian security

Instead of analyzing just some recent developments of Russia's domestic, foreign and security policies, this article focuses in particular on mid‐ and long‐term strategic trends and the consequences of Russia's decline for European and Eurasian Security. It argues that Russia is still in a long‐term socio‐economic decline and it is unrealistic to expect that Moscow will regain its former status as a Great Power or even Superpower in the mid‐term future even of its economy and military power improve rapidly and substantially. Against this background, two other powers of the Eurasian landmass, the EU and China will surpass Russia in international standing and secure great power status in the coming decades with far‐reaching consequences for the international system and Russia's security as well as for its role in Europe and Central as well a East Asia. In this light, the article analyzes strategic trends in domestic, foreign and security policies, including the impact of often overlooked factors such as demographic trends and the health crisis, of decentralization, regionalization and fragmentation within the Russian Federation, the future of Russia's military reform policies (including Russia's draft military doctrine of October 1999 and its nuclear illusions) and their implications for Russia's future foreign and security policies.     

A FAREWELL TO THE GREAT GAME? PROSPECTS FOR RUSSIAN-AMERICAN SECURITY COOPERATION IN CENTRAL ASIA

Long before 9–11, Russia and the United States found common ground in their efforts to undermine the Taliban government in Afghanistan, despite serious disagreements over policy in other parts of the world. The events of 9–11, however, changed Russian foreign and security policy drastically. One of the most fundamental and controversial shifts came when President Putin chose not to interfere in US negotiations with the Central Asian states to use their airbases for the US war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Putin also offered to use Russia’s oil reserves as a means to stabilize jittery world markets. In return, Russia gained US support for its bid to pipe Caspian Sea oil over Russian territory. More importantly, the US government gave Russia essentially a free hand in its war against separatist Chechnya. While there are many potential scenarios in highly unstable Central Asia that could serve to sour relations once again, Russia and the United States have an unprecedented opportunity to build trust and cooperation through peacekeeping and problem solving in the region.     

The EU and Ukraine: Rhetorical Entrapment?

Recently there has been a trend towards the development of two rival sets of alliances in Eurasia: in effect, one Western‐oriented alignment led by the United States and Turkey, including Israel, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. On the other hand, a group of states resisting American and Turkish influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia is developing, led by Russia and Iran, including Syria and Armenia. One of the most important questions for the development of these alignments is their expansion into Central Asia; in this context Uzbekistan's role is crucial. Uzbekistan is the only Central Asian state to pursue a proactive and independent foreign policy, as exemplified in its relations with both its neighbors and great powers. Tashkent has developed close military and security relations with NATO and for a time seemed to hedge its bets on US support, but has lately shown signs of turning back toward increasing security cooperation with Russia and China. Given the strategic value of Uzbekistan and its role as a regional player in its own right, the future course of the country's policies is of great importance to the security of Eurasia.     

NATO,the EEC,Gibraltar, North Africa: Overlapping issues for Spain

Reversing the retreat of the Yeltsin era, Russia has returned to Central Asia proactively. Its presence is increasingly felt in the traditional–that is, security–field and in new fields of engagement, such as strategically-placed investment or construction of regionalism. The cultural and “civilisational” role has also gained more prominence. Moscow's policy reflects pragmatic opportunism, aimed at getting the utmost benefits for Russia from a region in which it holds many assets rather than at a revival of the former empire. There are limits however as to how far its engagement can go due to constraints posed by Central Asian realities and Russian domestic developments. So far, the advance has been greatly facilitated by the West's retreat, giving rise to perceptions of an unfolding “great game”, while in reality a record of both competition and cooperation between Russia, China and the West is a normal state of affairs. Although Central Asian elites find it easier to deal with Moscow in the current political climate, they view its assertive role with caution and may turn to a rival suitor should the price for the relationship with Russia become too high.     

An Assessment of Future Patterns of Security in Central Asia

Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, various social problems left over have emerged in some Central Asian states, thus threatening social stability in the region. Under globalization, the former Soviet republics in Central Asia have made great efforts to develop constructive relations with others in the hope of strengthening their security. However, the threat of terrorism, extremism and separatism still exists. These non-traditional security issues play a role in current international politics, and the countries in the region are trylng to meet new challenges.     

Does Russo-Chinese Partnership Threaten America's Interests in Asia?

The Russo-Chinese relationship is one of the most important relationships in both Asian and international security. It is undergoing dynamic evolution as a result of the Russian war in Ukraine. This article stresses that the bilateral relationship is one where both Moscow and Beijing espouse the logic of the strategic triangle vis-a-vis the United States. But Washington renounces the effort to deal with Russia and its Asian relations as a strategic entity. Moreover, over the last 12-18 months, although Russia has sought an independent standing in Asia apart from China, it is increasingly unable to compete with China or assert that independence, due to its invasion of Ukraine, isolation from the West, sanctions, and failed economic policies. Thus, it is losing out to China and becoming more dependent on it. These trends are apparent in Russian policies towards Japan, the two Koreas, Southeast Asia, and Central Asia.     

Russia's information warfare structure: Understanding the roles of the security council,Fapsi, the state technical commission and the military

During the past two years, Russia has made significant progress in improving its infrastructure responsible for information security. Security specialists also have produced a draft information security doctrine (which the US does not possess) that discusses critical information issues and areas, and the internal and external information threats to the state. The primary organizations responsible for information security in Russia are the Security Council, responsible for national interests affected by the information age; the Federal Agency for Government Communications and Information (FAPSI), responsible for ensuring the security of state communications and conducting intercept operations; the State Technical commission, devoted to the development of international laws, licensing and certification of IW related policies; and the Russian armed forces, responsible for studying the impact of information operations on military art.     

欧盟对中亚战略浅析

2007年,欧盟出台了《中亚战略文件》,确立了欧盟与中亚5国之间的战略伙伴关系,把欧盟对中亚战略作为欧盟总体外交、全球战略、大邻国战略的重要组成部分。欧盟在政治、经济、安全和文化方面与中亚国家进行全面合作。边界安全、能源管线建设以及欧亚交通大通道的建设是欧盟与中亚国家合作的主要领域。欧盟对中亚战略实施的成功与否对欧盟作为全球行为体的地位和作用将是一个重要的衡量指标和考验。     

Combating Terrorism in Central Asia: Explaining Differences in States' Responses to Terror

This work examines differences in the level of violence of counterterrorism measures adopted by Central Asian states. Why do some Central Asian governments opt for wanton repression in the name of the struggle with terrorism, while others adopt less severe methods of control and prevention? To answer this question, this study draws on a synthesis of rationalist and constructivist explanations. Like rationalists, it posits that the magnitude of terrorism and states' material capabilities affect governments' responses to terrorism. Following constructivists, the study stresses the impact of ideas about the nature of terrorist threats and views on the appropriateness of the use of force on the counterterrorism policies of Central Asian states.     

2011年中亚战略形势评估

2011年是中亚国家取得主权独立、推进社会转型的第20个年头,也是各国应对各种挑战,努力维稳定、促发展的关键一年。政治上,各国政局均未出现大动荡,但经过独立20年的发展,中亚各国大多接近历史变革临界点,大多数国家均出现自上而下的政治体制改良趋势。经济上,各国逐渐摆脱金融危机影响,实现不同程度增长,但经济危机并未改变中亚经济的增长模式和基本布局,各国发展差距进一步拉大。安全领域,涉恐等恶性案件未显著减少,极端宗教思潮利用各种渠道加紧渗透,中亚安全风险上升值得关注。外交上,中亚各国平衡外交理念更加清晰,手段更加纯熟,但中亚地区的大国博弈有所加剧,俄美两国均提出自己的新中亚战略,日本、韩国等积极介入中亚事务。与此同时,中亚各国与中国关系稳步发展,安全与务实合作得以深化。     

Russia and the OSCE: From High Hopes to Disillusionment

The subject of this article is the changing balance between Russia's positive and negative interests in the Conference on/Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE/OSCE) as these have evolved in relation to Western policies on the OSCE and European security relations in general. Parallel to the decline of positive Russian interests in the CSCE/OSCE, an increase in negative attitudes can be observed, most of which concern the OSCE's activities in post-Soviet countries. While the Soviet Union was traditionally a reliable supporter of the CSCE, the Russian Federation, which initially pursued the same policy, has lost most of its sense of ownership in the OSCE. This change in Russian attitudes is critical for the Organisation's future, for an OSCE without active Russian participation would lose much of its raison d'être.     

Evidence of Russia's Bush Doctrine in the CIS1

Abstract

The article discusses the emergence of a Russian version of the Bush doctrine in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and Russian officials’ conceptual stretching of the strategic culture embodied in the National Security Concept (NSC) and the Military Doctrine (MD) from 2000 onwards. While these documents seem to cherish multilateralism and United Nations (UN) primacy in questions of global and regional security, terrorist attacks on Russia proper have engendered a more assertive approach to regional security issues in the Caucasus and Central Asia and brought Russian officials to consider unilateral pre-emptive strikes against terrorist bases. In the case of the Caucasus, Russia has been striking against terrorist bases on Georgian territory and contributed to constructing a failed state, whereas in the Central Asian case, Russia has sought to revitalise the defunct CIS security framework and pledge assistance to ‘allies’ in the fight against terrorism. The article argues that the war against terrorism has given Russia a new footing in the CIS. The issue of security is more salient, as is the reliance on military force to facilitate it.     

亚洲安全治理转型的历史分析与趋势展望

冷战对亚洲安全格局产生了根本影响，助推美国在亚洲安全格局中的主导地位，由此形成支离破碎、犬牙交错的地缘安全格局，迟滞地区国家探索亚洲安全治理的进程，导致多种安全观剧烈碰撞、相互影响并复杂互动，使亚洲形成两极之间的中间地带，为世界走向多极化创造了条件。从公共产品供给角度分析，亚洲安全治理主要存在美国主导的亚洲安全治理、东盟主导的地区安全合作和以中国为代表的亚洲新安全观及其实践，各种类型的安全治理在现实中并存共生，相互影响，相互作用，形成当今亚洲复杂多元的安全治理体系。中国在积极倡导新型安全理念、共同维护地区安全、探索安全治理新模式、强化大国战略互信、管控周边难点热点问题等方面，采取了一系列负责任、建设性、可预期的政策和举措，并取得了积极效果。亚洲安全架构建设依然任重道远，中国要以新安全观为指引，积极推动新安全观同地区各方安全理念和治理模式对接，推进亚洲地区安全架构建设，深化同有关国家的互信合作，推动构建亚洲命运共同体，在促进亚太安全治理和推动亚太安全新格局的构建中承担更大责任，发挥更大作用，作出更大贡献。     

A new model of Asian regionalism: does the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation have more potential than ASEAN?

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is an established player in Southeast Asia, while the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is an emergent force in Central Asia. This article comparatively assesses ASEAN and SCO to investigate the nature of each organization's model of cooperation and their utility in the contemporary political landscape in Asia. It argues that SCO differs from ASEAN on a few significant points: its composition and level of institutionalization. At the same time, both organizations have similar agendas and models of cooperation, emphasizing a common spirit, flexibility and a focus on regime security. The paper concludes that ASEAN's model of cooperation continues to be relevant to the contemporary Asian landscape, and its brand of loosely codified, informal and norm driven multilateralism continues to be durable and robust.     

俄罗斯与中亚国家安全合作机制分析

安全合作是俄罗斯与中亚国家关系的关键性领域,对中亚地区安全态势及发展趋势具有关键意义。俄罗斯与中亚国家借助双边及多边安全制度,构建了军事同盟体系,并形成了完备的组织机构和决策模式。俄罗斯与中亚在共同使用军事设施、军事技术合作、联合军事演习和军事人才培养等方面展开具体的安全合作。俄罗斯与中亚国家安全合作机制的有效性受到权力结构、合法性与国内政治等因素的制约,其未来有可能向更为紧密的方向发展,对中亚地区安全发挥着长期的主导性作用。     

No Return to the Past for Russia

Russian society is awakening and issues of domestic political and economic performance have come under closer scrutiny. To respond to the change, the Kremlin has moved to modify its method of governance – and strengthen its instruments of control – but there can be no return to the past. How the political process will evolve, and what the results will be, is impossible to predict, but the change will impact on Russia's domestic and foreign policies. In the meantime, Russia's international partners will have to deal with a familiar set of policies aimed at balancing between Moscow's real needs, its views of Russia's role and the opportunities which present themselves.     

美国新中亚战略评析

美国公布新的中亚战略包含四方面调整,即将中亚地区视为独立的地缘政治板块、将阿富汗视为中亚一部分、明确将在中亚加强对俄罗斯和中国的遏制、重新界定美国在该地区的比较优势。新中亚战略的实施将会对中亚地区稳定和主要大国在该地区互动产生一定影响。但由于美国在实施该战略中投入力度有限、比较优势不明显,中亚国家不会轻易改变自身多元平衡外交政策、对阿富汗及其局势的认知与美有明显差异,以及美国在中亚地区的战略冒进可能引发大国反制,新战略的实施不会一帆风顺。     

NATO expansion and Russian national interests

The article centres on the debate in Russia about NATO expansion into Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and how expansion affects re‐emergent Russian national interests post‐Madrid. The author examines official Russian arguments against expansion as well as the views of policy‐makers and political commentators, assesses the impact of NATO's plans on Russian‐Western Security and disarmament arrangements and analyses Russia's relations with her neighbours in CEE, the CIS and Asia.