Central Asia - General Discussion Thread

If you want to turn this thread into a general discussion about Central Asia I'll change the thread's title. Let's have a vote or something. Tell me what you think.

Ja, let's have that title!

I was just expecting Turkmenistan to just stop being interesting and the thread to die, but changing it so it remains useful is fine by me :)

For a large and/or powerful nation to be the subject of a thread is fine. Acknowledging that I'm not all that familiar with the 'stans in general outside of A-stan (courtesy of that little soiree the Coalition militaries are starting to wrap up there ), Turkmenistan doesn't really strike me as qualifying on either count.

However, a Central Asia thread, with the topic expanded to cover everything in that region, sounds to me like a subject more worthy of an OTC thread. (I've lost track of how many times I thought to start an OTC thread, only to realize it wouldn't go anywhere, or at least not anywhere other than where threads aren't supposed to go.)

[edit]
TLDR: +1 vote for thread rename/refocus to "Central Asia thread".

edited 2nd May '13 9:10:51 AM by Nohbody

Also vote for changing the title to a general Central Asia thread.

Having lived in the region for a couple years, some observations:

@Philippe O: The relations between Uzbeks and Tajiks in Uzbekistan actually aren't all that bad. It's true that there are sizable minority populations of Tajiks in cities such as Samarkand and Bukhara, and this can lead to some issues such as language use, but there haven't been any major tensions in the past few years. It's much better than, say, the relations between Uzbeks and Kyrgyz in Kyrgyzstan, where there were major anti-Uzbek riots in the town of Osh in 2010 (with hundreds of people killed)

@Trivialis: There are certainly connections between Afghanistan/Pakistan and Central Asia. Bobur, the founder of the Mughal Empire in South Asia, was originally born in what is now Uzbekistan, and he made his way to Afghanistan and then onwards after losing control of his original holdings. Even today, there are large Uzbek and Tajik enclaves in Afghanistan. Still, the divide of the mountains in Afghanistan has pushed the two areas in different directions — Central Asia got taken over by Russians while South Asia was colonized by the British, South Asia had a long history of mixing between Muslims and Hindus while Central Asia was predominantly Muslim, South Asian languages are Indo-European while Central Asian ones are mainly Turkish (except for Tajik, which is Persian), and so on.

The predominance of dictatorships in Central Asia is mainly due to the lack of any history of democratic institutionalization — these were essentially feudal societies up until the 19th century, and then got sucked into the Tsarist Empire and the Soviet Union, so when they became independent they fell by default into the authoritarian model they had been used to. (Admittedly, Niyazov was a bit wacky even for the region.) The remoteness and poverty of the region and, especially in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, the ability of the governments to use wealth from natural resources such as oil in order to facilitate staying in power mean this trend isn't likely to change anytime soon. Kyrgzstan is by far the most democratic country in the region, but even here democracy mainly represents the fight for control of resources between different power bases in the country (in the south vs. the north).

@Silasw: Soviet border drawing was pretty bad — Stalin intentionally drew borders that did not reflect the population of the countries at the time in order to prevent nationalist rebellions to Soviet rule emerging. This is why you have significant Tajik populations in Uzbekistan, Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, etc., as well as some related oddness (such as enclaves that are part of Uzbekistan but are completely surrounded by Kyrgyz territory).

@The Bat Pencil: The Uyghur population in Xinjiang is very closely related to Central Asia. Uyghur as a language is practically a dialect of Uzbek, and the cultures of the two areas are also very similar (different colonial heritages notwithstanding).

Thread title changed.

Cheers!

So, anyone been on holiday to this region? :)

Spent two years there with the Peace Corps.

In Central Asian news, Freedom House came out with its annual media freedom ratings today, and Turkmenistan is the worst in the world...tied with North Korea. Uzbekistan is third from the bottom. I wasn't expecting much for these countries, but that's just BAD.

Uzbekistan, from what I can recall, seems to be the local headache (Turkmenistan is certainly the strangest and most big brotherly, but the Uzbeks actively threaten Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and even Kazakhstan from time to time).

Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, speaking of, seem to have not really done well with self determination since the fall of the Soviet Union (the former suffering from civil war and post-civil war problems and the latter having ethnic conflicts), and thus are most interested in joining the Eurasian Union. Silver Lining in all this is Kyrgyzstan seems to now be a rather thriving democracy after 2009 revolution they had.

Thriving democracy is a bit of an overstatement. It's realms better compared to all the other states in the area, but there are certainly lots of problems with campaign irregularities, the plentiful use of patronage, and regional conflicts influencing the voting process. I'd say it's semi-democratic at best.

On the latest Freedom House rankings, Kyrgyzstan gets a 5 for political rights and a 4 for civil liberties (where 1 is best and 7 is worst). Of course, that's compared to Kazakhstan (6, 5), Tajikistan (6, 6), Uzbekistan (7, 7), and Turkmenistan (7, 7), so it's all relative.

Aye, I meant relatively.

Do these states have a martial tradition going for them?

Also, are we including Mongolia?

I had a dark lol at Belarus wanting to be in on the Eurasian Union - why be known as the last dictatorship of Europe when you could instead be one of many in the Other EU?

I wonder if that body would be good or bad for reform and democracy. It encourages people to trade with and discover other nations, but maybe also allows one dictatorship to be supported by the others' armies.

Mongolia? Sure :)

edited 3rd May '13 1:34:17 PM by betaalpha

Putin's Russia is seen as an improvement over Lukashenko's regime in Belarus. Not that it matters much, since Belarus is virtually another republic of the federation anyway.

I must resist thinking of the Eurasian Union as the Legion of Doom version of the European Union. Must... resist...

Especially as the region sounds awesomely exotic. Which 'stan (or Mongolia) is most worth going on a historical holiday to? Just thinkin'.

Central Asia Online English website - worth a link.

It's more like "Russia's new colonial empire"

Hrumph. What other European influences are present in the 'Stans besides Russia's?

Not that many. Traditional Central Asian culture is a mix of Turkish and Persian influences, with nomadic roots in the north and more settled ones in the south. The Russian influences came about due to it being the colonial power.

If you include Pakistan in the general region, you'll get British influences, because it was part of British India.

Pakistan doesn't count. But you don't have to go that far south for British influence. There is Afghanistan after all.

Afghanistan was a buffer zone between the British and the Russians during the 19th Century. The British did try to invade a number of times, and these either resulted in general catastrophe (the first time) or settlements that affected Afghan international relations but not its internal workings (subsequent times). In no case did the British have the same effect on Afghanistan that they did on the lands of the Indian subcontinent.

Duh, but they're the closest thing to British influence in central Asia, which is why I suggested that, even if its only relative to the other stans north of it. Pakistan is solidly considered part of the subcontinent and thus can't really count, even if it has -stan in its name.

Yes, and part of the scene of the The Great Game.

Yes, The British Empire was involved in Afghanistan from 1839-42, 1878-80 and 1919.

Right now, this is the forth time Britain has been in Afghanistan.

edited 6th May '13 12:15:36 AM by Greenmantle

In other words, not a new experience in the least.

On another note, does Mongolia have a decent HR rep or no?

In no expert, but Wikipedia says it's a Democracy, and Freedom House defines it as "Free" in 2012.