Drawing on decades of study about the area, Professor Frederick Starr is among the “old guard” of Central Asia academics. Most people with an interest in the region will have come across his work.

Starr is a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He focuses on oil and gas politics, Islamic faith, culture and law.

Sitting down with neweurasia for almost two hours, he answers questions on an extremely broad range of issues. Many questions reached us from the wider neweurasia community and touch upon issues close to the hearts of our writers.

neweurasia: To start out with, what constitutes “Central Asia” in your view?

Starr: Far more than the five former Soviet republics. For example, before the advance of Russian colonial rule, you had absolutely regular communication by horse from what is now Tajikistan down to the northern areas of Pakistan. This continued right up until the 1930s when the borders were finally sealed. I knew an old man who literally took a horse down there from Khorog, went across the hills, played polo for three days on that horse in this town in what was then northern Kashmir, then partied for a couple of evenings, got on his horse and rode back. He stayed entirely within one cultural zone, which includes former Soviet central Asia, Afghanistan, northern Pakistan, parts of northwest India, Khorosan in Iran, and Xinjiang. Yet because of the bias imposed by our respect for the former Soviet border, we are not yet framing it in its full dimensions.

(more…)

As CXW has already reported, the Kyrgyz blogosphere is gradually expanding with a new blog called Nomadistan appearing online. Within a short period of its existence, it already attracted bright and open minded authors and guests who leave their comments. The blog sounds quite promising:(About Nomadistan)

Whether you’re a first-time explorer or a seasoned warrior of the steppe, Nomadistan will provide new information and perspectives on issues that will grab your attention.

During the last week, one of the most discussed topics among Kyrgyz bloggers was the situation around the American University in Central Asia. As its website says, AUCA has an established reputation for “dedication to democratic values, individual freedoms and the spirit of innovation”, and, indeed, it has played an important role in the region’s educational field and grew into one of the academic leaders in Central Asia.

However, on February 15, the Jogorku Kenesh [Parliament] deputy Ishak Masaliev raised [ru] the issue of AUCA’s location and gave a commission to the Kyrgyz Ministry of Education and Culture to address his concers. The main argument was that the building of the university has a historical importance as it used to be home for the Kyrgyz government in Soviet times. He also alleged that the majority of AUCA students come from rich and highly-ranked officials’ families, while poor students from regions make up a very small percentage.

This statement spurred a heated discussion in the blogosphere. (more…)

How serious is the Islamist threat in Central Asia? What is the future of Russian influence in the region? Is a regime change in Uzbekistan imminent? Whither Kyrgyzstan? Dr. Eric McGlinchey recently sat down with neweurasia to offer his expertise on all these questions and more.

McGlinchey is an Assistant Professor of Politics and Government at George Mason University, a member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Program on New Approaches to Russian Security, and is an advisor to the Eurasia Program at the National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR). He is among the first of a new generation of scholars offering policymakers a fresh perspective on Central Asian affairs. (neweurasia has covered several of his presentations.) His research focuses on Islam and social mobilization, information communication technology, and authoritarianism in Central Asia.
(more…)

Russland Aktuell reports of a new survey undertaken by Russian pollsters VZIOM that again sheds light at (the perception of) happiness in the CIS. According to the findings, there is a majority of happy people in seven out of twelve CIS states.

Leading the league are Kazakhstani citizens: 73% of those asked responded that they are happy with their lives. Coming in second and third are Belarus and Kyrgyzstan (both 65%). The share of Russia’s population being happy with their lives is 51%. The majority of Azeris (52%) and Ukrainians (61%) are unhappy.

Asked for their economic situation, 45% of all Kazakhstanis responded with “positive” and only 2% with “negative”. As money alone doesn’t make you happy, Azeris are (despite their general unhappiness) generally positive about their material situation (41%).

Now here comes the expert opinion on why Kazakhstan tops the league (my translation and emphasis):

According to VZIOM communications director Igor Eidman, Kazakhstan’s top position is not only explained by the booming economy. “The assessment of one’s own happiness depends on two factors: one objective, on which the general economic situation and personal welfare have a strong influence; and one subjective, which is determined by people’s mentality.”

The oriental attitude of those people in Kazakhstan and also Kyrgyzstan makes them more loyal to their leaders: “It isn’t customary there to complain of the state about one’s fortune,” Eichman says.

Although public opinion polling in the region is weak, it’s true that happiness indeces continuously show high general life satisfaction in Central Asia. In one of our posts on the Uzbekistan blog, James presents some better reasons for this Central Asian Happiness. James says that it might have something to do with relatively decent levels of income equality.

Unfortunately, the article didn’t have any data on Uzbekistan, but I’ll look out for updates.

Where it all began: Vista from Villa Petrolea, Baku

Of course Joshua blogging at Registan.net beat me to it, writing an excellent post about a new International Crisis Group report on Central Asia’s resource-rich countries Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan.

The report argues that Central Asia’s oil and gas resources won’t counterbalance Russia’s monopolistic market position. The report also holds that the recent agreement between Kazahkstan, Turkmenistan and Russia does not rule out a trans-Caspian pipeline. The latter should be accompanied by our growing awareness of the region’s dire human rights situation.

The meat of the report, however, sheds light at the resource curse in the three countries. Like Joshua, I have some problems with the moulding of three very diverse countries into a typology of a very under-researched topic, and by extension also with the title of the report - Central Asia’s Energy Risks - for the same reasons that Joshua lucidly elaborates. (more…)

Event Report: Princeton History Professor Stephen Kotkin

Stephen Kotkin, Professor of History Professor and Director of Russian & Eurasian Studies at Princeton University, gave an excellent, and in many ways provocative, lecture at George Mason University several weeks ago. Kotkin’s lecture was largely based on an article forthcoming in Kritika, which you can access through this link (PDF). In his lecture, he challenged not only the direction of the field of Eurasian studies, but the term “Eurasia” itself. Instead, he proposed “political exchange” and “imperial legacy” as an alternative framework for analysis.

Does that sound like a lot of academic jargon? Read on and I will try to explain what he is getting at.
(more…)

Martha Brill Olcott of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was once again kind enough to be interviewed by neweurasia. Previously, we asked her about Carnegie’s new website Central Asian Voices. This time, Dr. Olcott answered questions on everything from Islamic extremism to democratization to the Tulip Revolution.

Update: Thanks to Carnegie, this interview is now available on their site in Russian (Благодаря Carnegie интервью теперь доступно на их сайте на русском языке).

(more…)

Editor’s Note: What follows is part of a cross-blog survey about minorities in Central Asia.

In a 21st century where nationalism, separatism, and multiculturalism are as strong as ever, it is easy to overlook the inherent mutability of ethnicity. This is especially true in Central Asia where terms such as “Tajik,” “Kyrgyz,” and “Uzbek” meant something very different less than a century ago, and terms like “Sart” and “Teptiar” no longer have any meaning.

As part of neweurasia’s latest survey on Central Asian minorities, this post will look back on the deliberate process enacted by the Soviet Union to create ethnicities and nationalities with the ultimate intention of eliminating them entirely.
(more…)

For those of you out there with a perverse interest in academic infighting, it looks like they are taking off the gloves for this year’s Central Eurasian Studies Society (CESS) annual conference in Seattle.

I was forwarded this email:

Dear all,

We are in the process of organizing a panel entitled: Central Asian Studies in light of Imperialism: A Neo-Orientalist Approach within Western Academia.

In the work, Orientalism, Edward W. Said elaborates on the idea behind Middle Eastern studies in Western academia. Said is interested in questioning the discourse of Orientalists, and furthermore, claims that the actual purpose of Middle Eastern Studies is not academic, but rather a policy-oriented approach that facilitates imperialism and colonialism. In this context Said argues that Europeans referred to the Eastern world as the ‘Orient’, a term that has only a vague meaning. Today, the region historically known as Turkistan has similarly been renamed ‘Central Asia’ in the context of the Neo-Orientalist process in policy oriented academia. In this field, some of the so-called “scholars,” working with policy-based institutions such as think-tanks, governmental and “non governmental” entities are the forefront of this approach, within the framework of imperialism and exploitation. These institutions, including think-tanks and non-governmental interest groups operate as a bridge between academia and the policy-oriented world. Additionally, academia has become a facilitator of an exploitative process towards Turkistan. The same process has been observed in Middle Eastern Studies for over a half century.

Today, the best example of this Neo-Orientalist or Colonialist approach can be found within the discipline of Central Asian studies within the U.S., and its relation with think-tanks, governmental, and non-governmental organizations. Thus, academia has been losing its objectivity, transforming from C. Wright Mills’ conception of the sociological imagination, to a facilitator of imperialism. This is occurring through its implicit representation of political interests. We can see this destructive trend taking place within Uyghur, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, and Turkmen studies.

We welcome submissions related to Neo-Orientalism and Central Asian Studies, and also including the following:

Neo-Orientalism and Central Asian Studies, Imperialism, think-tanks and Central Asia, Role of SOROS, NDI, the Woodrow Wilson Center, Carnegie Endowment and US Helsinki Commission on Central Asia, Colorful revolutions and imperialism/exploitation of the market, Sultan Galiev and Imperialism in Turkistan.

Please send abstract to:

Tugrul Keskin
Rammy Haija
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Department of Sociology

So… according to the above description, the very term “Central Asia” now has “neo-orientalist” connotations and we are back to “Turkestan.” Pity; “newturkestan” just doesn’t have the same ring to it as “neweurasia.” (Assuming, of course, that “Eurasia” and “Central Eurasia” are out as well… but that would undermine the very organization hosting the conference - CESS - so maybe our title is safe for now).

Basically, the academics are going to be taking on the DC policy wonks, and they seem to be explicitly targeting some pretty heavy hitters: Carnegie, the Wilson Center, Helsinki Commission. Edward Said gained notoriety by making “orientalist” an academic swear word in the late 1970s, arguing that even the most well-intentioned scholars are frequently biased, perhaps without even knowing it. His arguments were initially limited to the Middle East, but it seems are being extended to Central Asia (or Turkestan).

Naturally, since no argument have been laid down yet, it is impossible to judge the merit of this harsh assault on the policy community. It would be great, though, if someone attending the conference could write a summary of the panel in September.

In the meantime, any ideas about which scholars or publications they are targeting specifically with this assault?

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently launched the website Central Asian Voices, featuring “timely analysis of political, economic, social and security developments in the five states of Central Asia.” The architect of the new site, Central Asia scholar Martha Brill Olcott, was kind enough to allow neweurasia to ask her some questions about the new site, respond to some of the questions Nathan raised over on Registan, and share some more general thoughts on Central Asia. Dr. Olcott is a Senior Associate at Carnegie and author of Central Asia’s Second Chance.

Update: Thanks to Carnegie, this interview is now available on their site in Russian (Благодаря Carnegie интервью теперь доступно на их сайте на русском языке).

(more…)