Image by neweurasia's Schwartz (CC-usage).

Editor’s note: As the new year approaches, neweurasia debates whether an economically and politically unified Central Asia makes sense (much less if it’s even possible). H.B. Paksoy (D. Phil., Oxford University) explores the possibility of applying a federal model to the region.

Earlier this year, neweurasia’s Schwartz proposed a single Central Asian currency (”super-som”) as the solution to some of the region’s woes.  If this happened, it would be the first step toward establishing a United States of Central Asia — it’s an idea that gets floated around every now and again, including by the region’s leaders.  Well, here are my two cents.

Central Asian politics often bears too close resemblance to a game of buzkashi.  For this reason, we forget that statecraft here has deep roots.  Several governance manuals from the 10th Century and even earlier are still extant and give us insight into the oldest currents of political identity in the region.

One theme from back then that we see repeating today is that of Central Asian polities under pressure from the outside to modernize and open up to global trade.  As a consequence, long standing local values, then and now, are disrupted.  The polities, threatened by the outside, strive to preserve their old lifestyles: cultural resistance becomes war by other means.

Anytime a problem is defined, the mind wanders about casting for an answer or solution. There may not always one ready to hand, other than the invisible hand that apply to economics. That is not to say that there ought not be any communication whatever among polities.  Rather, the question is: at what level? And, what ought be the qualifications of those communicators? And their numbers, intentions, objectives?  If the designated communicators are there with the pre-conceived notions, to impose their will on the other side, the entire enterprise fails, and the hostilities commence once again.

It has been suggested that peace, enduring peace, can only be devised by global participation of all polities. This is difficult to defend or demonstrate. Some governance systems are designed for perpetual conflict without which they cannot survive. To quash such particularistic systems, other polities must arm and wage real war. The necessity to establish additional forces and logistics for the purpose eventually recalls Napoleon’s dictum: One can do everything with a bayonet, except sit on it.

The federative model of governance is a solution advanced to check the excesses of a overly centralized and overly authoritarian world government. In that case, the laws enacted, rules promulgated with executive decree in the name of the majority (it those indeed reflect the clear decisions of the majority), presumably for the good of all will not suit the needs and aspirations of the minority or minorities.

Will that mismatch not constitute a violation of rights pursued by the majority as well? Will the minority be forced into submission into a set of circumstances, for example, buying a certain product, for the sake of ‘efficiency?’ If the producer of, say, genetically engineered agricultural products have the right to engineer and market them, should not the consumers also have the right to accept or reject them?

Perhaps the Turk proverb Avcu nice al bilse, Adük anca yol bilür (As many devices the hunter knows to hunt with, so does the bear to escape) is still meaningful.  Indeed, where E pluribus unum is the slogan of the United States of America — and a fitting one, indeed — this proverb might be fitting for a United States of Central Asia. ;-)