In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF ASIAN RESEARCH NBR ANALYSIS VOLUME 14, NUMBER 3, October 2003 Strategic Security Dilemmas in the Caucasus and Central Asia Military and Economic Security Perspectives Svante E. Cornell The Limits of Multilateralism Roy Allison 141 123 [This page intentionally left blank.] Foreword The National Bureau ofAsian Research is publishing a two-volume series of the NBR Analysis to highlight the urgent and persistent nature of the changed strategic security environment in the Caucasus and CentralAsia. The two volumes explore a range of competing interests and influences in these volatile regions—emerging threats, bilateral and multilateral relations , external great power and regional power influences, and the consequences of the unprecedented physical presence of U.S. military forces in these regions since the start of the Afghanistan campaign in December 2001. The national security community historically has tended to view these states as homogenous “regions”—hence the use of terms such as the Caucasus, the Caspian region, or the CentralAsian republics. In fact, the individual states within the South Caucasus—Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia—suffer from deep-seated ethnic conflicts and pursue military and economicpoliciesthatcollidewitheachother ’sandwiththeirimmediateneighbors’interests.The fiveCentralAsianstates—Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan,Tajikistan,Turkmenistan,andUzbekistan— have struggled to create national identities and to develop coherent economic policies, and still lack the capacity to coalesce around shared regional concerns or common interests. As the countries enter the twenty-first century and are in their second decade of behaving as individual states, it is apparent that we need to modify our analytical approaches to understand how these states perceive their strategic interests. We need to re-evaluate how their political leaders assess threats to their countries’security.We need to investigate how external influences from great and regional powers—Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran,Turkey, Europe , and the United States—are shaping the security landscape both within the Eurasian states and across regional boundaries.We also need to anticipate how the deployment of U.S. and other national forces on the territories of fragile states in the Caucasus and CentralAsia, to fight the global war on terror, may produce unintended consequences—politically, economically ,andsocially—forlonger-termregionalstability. This first volume of the series examines “Strategic Security Dilemmas in the Caucasus and CentralAsia.” Our authors presented papers at the Caspian Sea Basin Security conference 121 held in Seattle inApril 2003.Their research attempts to measure how current security dilemmas affect the future stability of the states situated at the crossroads of Europe,Asia, and the Middle East. The authors highlight the tragedy of September 11, 2001, as the principal catalyst for redefining the strategic significance of the Caucasus and CentralAsia. Svante Cornell, Deputy Director of the CentralAsia-Caucasus Institute, analyzes the “Military and Economic Security Perspectives” of the Caucasian and CentralAsian states. His analysis reminds us that each state is contending with unique security concerns, while at the same time they all struggle to address regional tensions without resorting to conflict. Cornell contends that the creation ofAmerican bases in Uzbekistan,Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan, and the sending of U.S. special forces to train in Georgia, have redrawn the political map of both the Caucasus and CentralAsia. His article examines how the presence of U.S. troops in this region complicates the states’ abilities to address endemic problems—ethnic conflicts, tensions and uncertainties over political succession, and the social and economic crises associatedwithdrugtraffickingandtraffickinginwomenandillegalmigrants . RoyAllison,DirectoroftheRoyalInstituteofInternationalAffairs(ChathamHouse)Russia and Eurasia Program, evaluates “The Limits of Multilateralism” and offers a candid assessment of whether the states in this region can adopt and implement multilateral strategies to resolve regional tensions.Allison examines the historical record since 1994–95 for multilateral institutionsandanalyzeswhymostoftheseinitiativeshaveproducednomorethangoodintentions .Herecountsthevariousattemptstoformalliancesthatincludeonlymembersfromwithin the region, and describes how the current trend towards bilateral relationships is undermining multilateral defense cooperation.Allison notes that “neither the consultative bodies, which involve only the CentralAsian states, nor those that engage both CentralAsian countries and regionalpowers,havebeensuccessfulingeneratingaprocesstowardssubstantivemultilateralism and cooperation in the security and defense policy or thinking of the states involved.” This two-volume series explores issues that will continue to be investigated as part of NBR’s “CentralAsia in the Twenty-first Century” research program. We are grateful to the U.S.ArmyWar College’s Strategic Studies Institute; the Russian, East European, and Central Asian Studies Center at the University ofWashington’s Jackson School of International Studies ;theCentralIntelligenceAgency;andPacificNorthwestNationalLaboratory’sPacificNorthwest Center for Global Security for their support of these studies.As with all NBR reports, the authors are solely responsible for the content and recommendations of their papers. RichardJ.Ellings President The National...


Additional Information

MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.