Small State Foreign Policy in Central Asia: The Cases of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.

• Author: Kelkitli, Fatma Asli

Introduction

Small states in the international system are recognized by their limited capacity in terms of territorial size, population, gross domestic product (GDP), and military prowess. Population particularly stands out among other material indicators while identifying the smallness of a state. Countries with less than 10 million populations have been considered small powers since the 1960s. Additionally, a state's self-perception regarding its place on the international stage is accepted as another signifier in determining its size. Small powers are defined as the states that are cognizant of the fact that they are unable to ensure their security without help from other states, institutions, or processes. (1)

Material and structural constraints of the small powers induce them to concentrate their foreign policy activities on neighboring and regional areas most of the time. (2) Caution, moderation, and risk-aversion prevail in their relations with the more powerful states. They usually avoid utilizing military force as a technique of statecraft and prefer resorting to diplomatic channels and instruments. (3) Alliance with great power, playing an active role in regional and/or international institutions, or pursuing a policy of neutrality are the most prevalent diplomatic methods adopted by the leaders of the small states to cope with the vagaries of a complex and intimidating outside world.

Small states in close geographical proximity to powers with extensive offensive capabilities, especially in the case of unavailability of allies or outside aid, may toe the line of great power by demonstrating bandwagoning behavior. (4) Aligning with great power may also have some financial benefits, such as access to large markets and foreign capital. The small state may also enhance its status vis-a-vis the other states in its immediate neighborhood and global sphere.

The second foreign policy behavior embraced by small states is to devote time, energy, and resources to regional and/or multilateral institutions. These kinds of organizations appeal to small powers as they endorse formal equality between their members, they have the potential to restrain the designs and activities of powerful states, and they function as platforms of consultation, discussion, and information exchange between states of varying caliber. (5) Moreover, some of the small powers bring to the agenda of these regional and/or international institutions some global matters such as education, environment, health, and human rights and contribute to the setting of new principles, rules, and norms in these problem areas. This norm entrepreneur attitude eventually boosts the reputation of the small powers, thus indirectly assisting the realization of their goals in other priority realms. (6)

Neutrality is the third foreign policy behavior adopted by the small states. It may be defined as not taking part in a war. Permanent/perpetual neutrality, which is usually codified in the constitution or is declared via treaty, requires a state to maintain neutrality both in war and peaceful times, whereas classic/traditional neutrality is often not coded and is activated in the case of an outbreak of war. (7) Small states pursue neutrality to avoid being compelled to take sides in a probable conflict between great powers. Neutrality works better when the small power is politically non-assertive and strategically irrelevant.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union precipitated the emergence of many small states in the Baltic region, Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus, and Central Asia. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan are among these small states located in Central Asia. While Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have preferred aligning with Russia, Turkmenistan has embraced permanent neutrality since 1995. This article explores the underlying causes of the foreign policy preferences of these three small Central Asian republics in the post-independence period.

The international relations (IR) literature has its share of small state studies focusing on post-Soviet states' foreign policy behavior. (8) However, there is a dearth of research on the foreign policy behavior of small Central Asian states, although some studies exist that concentrate on foreign policy making in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. (9) Yet, the literature is devoid of a study that examines the foreign policy preferences of these Central Asian republics in the post-Soviet era from a comparative perspective. The main contribution of this article to the IR literature is to fill the gap in this realm.

Research Framework

The study uses John Stuart Mill's System of Logic/Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD). This method necessitates the selection of cases that differ concerning the independent variables, whereas all contesting variables are held constant. It becomes possible to isolate the explanatory value of the independent variable by choosing countries that are geographically and culturally close to each other. (10) The MSSD is especially suitable for area studies as the countries that are part of a certain region may have a common history, religion, and culture. It helps to identify the main features that differ among similar countries and that account for the outcome. (11)

The Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan share many similar characteristics, such as common Soviet legacy, landlocked position, and population size. Yet, as the dependent variable in this small-N research design, foreign policy behavior differs in Turkmenistan. The research framework used in the article is based on three independent variables, namely internal threat, natural resource endowment, and geography.

Internal threats include efforts to overthrow governments, struggles to control state institutions, competition for resources, and ethnic or religious movements that vie for autonomy or independence. These domestic security considerations impact the foreign policy decisions of states. The ethnic clashes between the Kyrgyz and the Uzbek minorities that took place in Osh on the verge of the disintegration of the Soviet Union recurred in the spring of 2010. On the other hand, Tajikistan had to grapple with a civil war between 1992 and 1997. Turkmenistan, however, did not suffer from internal vulnerabilities emanating from ethnic or religious conflicts, which helped the country to sustain its independent standing.

Natural resource endowment encompasses the possession of land, water, and sea resources that are provided by nature. Of all these three small Central Asian states, Turkmenistan owns the most critical, economically valuable, and thus expensive natural resource, natural gas. As an energy-rich country, Turkmenistan is much closer to economic self-sufficiency than Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. These two countries retain scarce natural resources and depend on energy imports. This advantage equips Turkmenistan with greater foreign policy choices than Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

The geographic location may also play an important role in the foreign policy preferences of small states with limited capabilities. The possibility of external attacks, refugee flows, and infiltration of criminals and extremists through borders increases the importance of neighbors for small powers. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan's neighborhood with China's problematic Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region and Tajikistan and Turkmenistan's neighborhood with volatile Afghanistan impinge on the foreign policy actions of these countries. Turkmenistan is in a much more advantageous position regarding geography as well. The country does not share borders with China, and the Turkmen-Afghan frontier is much calmer than the Tajik-Afghan border despite the surge in incidents instigated by radical Islamic groups.

The study's initial hypothesis is that natural resource endowment, coupled with fewer internal threats and geographical constraints compared to Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, paved the way for more independent and flexible foreign policy standing on behalf of Turkmenistan. The following three parts will test the veracity of this hypothesis by examining the influence of independent variables on the foreign policy behavior of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.

The Impact of Internal Threats on Foreign Policy Orientation

The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the ensuing independence came at a time when Kyrgyzstan was grappling with the implications of serious ethnic conflict and political instability. The summer of 1990 had witnessed bloody infighting between the Kyrgyz and the Uzbek minority in the South-Western city of Osh, which was triggered by the Kyrgyz government's grab of an Uzbek collective farm and handover of it to the landless Kyrgyz farmers. The Osh events and the rising democratic tide precipitated a political crisis in the country that resulted in the election of Askar Akayev to the presidency of Kyrgyzstan in October 1990. Akayev decided to pursue a multi-vector policy that encompassed close relations with major global powers, rising middle powers, neighboring states, and international organizations. (12)

Kyrgyzstan's initial move was to re-establish political, economic, and security ties with its former patron Russia. Kyrgyzstan became one of the founding members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and put its signature on the Treaty on Increased Integration in Economic and Humanitarian Fields and the CIS Collective Security Treaty (CST). Kyrgyzstan also embarked on a political and economic liberalization path to receive the much-needed Western financial aid.

Growing internal security concerns stemming from the regional developments led Kyrgyzstan to give more weight to the Russian dimension in its foreign policy starting at the end of the 1990s. The Batken incident, during which the militants of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan aimed to overthrow the Islam Karimov regime in...