Central Asia viewed from different angles

Some quite unexpected conclusions could be drawn from several speeches made by the participants. First of all, experts from the regional countries and the USA, who were present at the conference had some strong disagreements defining threats to stability of the Central Asian states.

It is indisputable that there are these threats, both interior and exterior ones. But a number of experts still continue to talk about the exterior threats as the most important ones, while other focus their attention on the interior threats. True, what for one neighbour is an interior threat, for another one is exterior.

For instance, possible upheavals in Uzbekistan because of unresolved socioeconomic problems and totally suppressed democratic processes remain a big interior problem for the Uzbek authorities and a big exterior problem for Kazakhstan. In general, the conceptual approach of experts defending this point of view can be correct - there have been serious changes in the region recently and certain problems have become less acute.

For example, the situation in Afghanistan seriously worries Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, while for Kazakhstan although this problem is serious, it is at the same time secondary (except for one of its aspects - heroin, which alone can represent one grave threat to the stability in the region.)

The situation is contrary with reference to the Caspian littoral problems - it is abstract for Kyrgyzstan or Tajikistan, but very relevant indeed for Kazakhstan.

Akbarsho Iskandarov, ambassador of Tajikistan to RK, spoke a lot about exterior sources of the threats: international terrorism, drug traffic, rivalry between great powers in the region. As for Yerlan Karin, Kazakhstani expert, he brooded more on poverty and corruption in Central Asia creating favourable milieu for any exterior threat.

The priorities given to some treats define how they should be combated. Interior problems, naturally, are resolved by the governments of the concerned countries, the exterior ones should be resolved by integrating structures. The SCO was mostly mentioned in this context.

A number of experts observe that no matter how this issue is viewed theoretically, de facto each state is hoping for itself only. Considering the fact that the SCO has so far visibly manifested itself only at the level of official events, such approach must be correct. But stronger integration in the security still remains one of the most efficient ways for resolution of the existing and potential problems. Now concrete measures should be defined and followed.

The situation is not so simple for Kazakhstan. The integrating structures do limit the sovereignty in one way or another. There are countries near Kazakhstan for whom this is not a matter of concern.

Is there anything Kyrgyzstan would not sacrifice in exchange for any systematic aid? Uzbekistan displays strength and self-assuredness, but what if the Andijan events repeat themselves? Do the regional countries have any certainty that this country safe from a bigger instability? Potentially and presently the positions of Tashkent are not so firm. So it is really interested by all means to construct any security systems.

And what about Kazakhstan? The country is an objective leader (no matter if it is recognised or not) in the region in political and economic reforms. Actually uniting Kazakhstan and its neighbours under one term "Central Asia," where it is fashionable now to include also Afghanistan is not correct - we are too far away from each other.

Even in the Soviet times there was a special term "Kazakhstan and Central Asian republics." Therefore we have problems that are somewhat different from the problems of our neighbours.

Afghanistan is quite far away from us. There isn't and there can't be any strong underground network capable of staging some kinds of the Andijan events in Kazakhstan. There aren't any regional contradictions like in Kyrgyzstan.

The main task of the republic now is to a bigger extent economic, although it does have serious social and political aspects. It is diversification of the economy in order to make it more stable and sustainable. There are also security and even democracy problems, but on totally different level than those of our neighbours.

It is completely interior, we don't have to sacrifice anything for the sake of participation in the integrating structures.

So even the departure points in the discussion of regional security problems are different for Kazakhstan and other Central Asian republics.