Looking Beyond Transition in Central Eurasia
by Anthony Richter
The countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia have passed through their transitions to arrive on the world stage facing economic, political, and social challenges common to countries throughout the world. Anthony Richter, director of OSI' s Central Eurasia Project, argues that the states in the two regions must now look to international standards and systems for solutions to their problems.
n 2001, the states of
the Caucasus and Central Asia will mark their first decade of independence.
Should they still be called transitional societies? The idea of a transition
can be an appealing notion, but it's a relative one, depending on how
long it takes and where the country is located. Sharing a border with
Germany or Afghanistan can influence the stakes for the would-be reformer
set on political openness and liberal trade. And whether a transition
takes two centuries or five years makes a great deal of difference to
people buffeted by political and economic change.
But what if the period of rapid transition is over in the Caucasus and Central Asia? What implications does that have for the people who live there and those of us who interact with them and their leaders?
“The politics of transition puts responsibility for today's problems
on the past and postpones demands for justice until tomorrow. But
declaring
|
A new world has undoubtedly taken shape in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Myriad developments are at play: the transformation of relations with Russia; new interactions with countries on the other side of former Soviet borders; the reassertion of local traditions; and the pursuit of nation-building projects and economic development.
But the expectation, widely held at the time of the Soviet collapse, that these countries were to be "societies in transition" on a fast track to democratic and market reforms has not been fulfilled. The assumption that transition always moves in the same direction toward greater openness was an unexamined article of faith in the early 1990s. Moreover, the expectations, which were not based on any solid analysis, have not been borne out by subsequent developments.
As the countries of the regions are now integrating into the international system, they face many of the problems and trends that other countries do — whether it is the mixed blessing of an oil boom or the scourge of drug trafficking. Given their standing, then, it is worth asking whether the term "transitional" is useful any longer, either analytically or politically.
During the Cold War, Sovietologists argued that the USSR was so exceptional a political system that it was unique and therefore not susceptible to social scientific analysis.
Now the argument for the uniqueness of formerly communist countries is advanced under the cliché of "societies in transition." But the political use of "transition" is perhaps more damaging than the academic one. Ten years ago, the notion of a "transition" served to encourage the supporters of a break with the Soviet past. Today, the idea of "transition" can just as often serve as an excuse not to observe international human rights treaties, or to postpone grappling with difficult political and economic reforms.
The shift in emphasis toward postponing reforms is important. The politics of transition puts responsibility for today's problems on the past and postpones demands for justice until tomorrow. But declaring an end to the transition puts important problems on the table today.
As
we see in this issue of the Open Society News, new opportunities
have appeared in the form of oil and gas, though the full benefits and
costs of such sudden natural-resource wealth have yet to be properly planned.
The Internet, with its own pipelines of information, has only just begun
to penetrate the region, but the lift to productivity and development
is challenged by policies that may yet neutralize its impact.
Though they may often seem new and remote from the vantage point of Washington, D. C., or the capitals of Western Europe, the states of the Caucasus and Central Asia are starting to compete with older, more powerful states for funds and attention from investors and foreign governments. These countries are participating in regional if not global business cycles, and are contending with the interests of countries from which they were previously sheltered by Soviet borders and a centralized government in Moscow.
Unlike in other developing economies, there is generally more enthusiasm than suspicion about globalization in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Regional leaders are putting much hope in the global economy and foreign investment to cure their ailing economies and make them rich. In many ways, the countries in these two regions have finally arrived— though certainly not at the destination they anticipated in 1991. Central Eurasia's arriviste status was underscored by the Eurasia Economic Forum held in Kazakhstan in 2000; unlike the annual meeting in Davos, the only protests in Almaty were by those who didn't get an invitation. Recently, however, environmental NGOs are beginning to question the impact of transnational energy corporations in the Caspian Basin.
The countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia have reached a point where they can no longer use their transitions as an excuse to ignore serious problems while aspiring for support from the international community. The sources of their problems may be unique, but the standards they are expected to accept are used around the world. When it comes to good governance, human rights, and economic policy, the rule must be acceptance, not exceptions.
|
FOR MORE INFORMATION
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
ADD YOUR COMMENTS AT OUR DISCUSSION FORUM
< BACK
| TOP | INDEX | NEXT
STORY >