Research On Relationship Between Kazakhstan And Uzbekistan

During the tortuous integration process of Central Asia (herein referred to as CA), the complex bilateral relationship is the factors any related analysis could not ignore. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, being the two most important regional countries of CA, their relationship has never been better than cold. Rigidity and ignorance have always been the main policy choice and attitude tendency both governments would choose when referring to highlighted contradictions such as border negotiation and ethnic issues, and these attitudes had harmed the achievement of cooperation, regional instability, and the implementation of regional multi-national cooperation regime. Therefore, analyzing the defacto bilateral relationship and revealing the underlying impact factors are vital for deeply understanding the CA issues, especially the cooperation dilemma, as well as important content when we try to outlook the SCO’s future. With the uprising of China’s regional influence, maintaining a stable CA, promoting regional cooperation, and efficiently protecting and extending its regional interests have now become some of the most important diplomatic topics for China. Considering the insufficient research and failure in giving a systematic explanation about Kazakh-Uzbek relationship, this article tries to imply the Analytic Hierarchy Process approach (AHP) to comprehensively analyze all factors that had influenced the evolution of this relationship, and help the reader fully understand the nature and real influence of the developing of it. Thus it is safe to say, implying the IR theories and approaches on regional issues is a useful exploration to upgrade the theoretical level of contemporary CA research, bears both the theoretical and realistic significance.This article believes that AHP approach could help teasing all kinds of factors in national relationship and therefore understanding its nature and characters. In the first chapter, based on the defining of the AHP, we declared this approach’s explain capacity in Kazakh-Uzbek relationship discussion. Then we expand the analysis according to the three levels, meaning the systematic factor, national factor, and policy-maker factor. This way could avoid the pitfall of confusing all factors of traditional historical research, and clarify the impact of different factors and their primary and secondary relations.The second chapter is about the historical details of Kazakh-Uzbek relationship, focused on the formation of ethnic-Kazakh and ethnic-Uzbek, and their developments during USSR period. Historical memories have no-doubt influence on national relationship, however, the Kazakh and Uzbek as USSR republics were not real national-state. So this period of history was meant to discuss separately instead of being included in AHP analysis. Historically, ethnic-Kazakh was a branch of ethnic-Uzbek and later developed into a different nation, one represents the nomad culture and the other the settled agricultural culture. Uzbek, due to its contribution to CA civilization, has been normally considered as the leader of this region, while Kazakh’s importance relies mainly on its geographic location.The third chapter focuses on the representative of Kazakh-Uzbek relationship. In this chapter, the underlying influential factors toward this relationship defacto and future tendency have been discussed. Since independence, two countries have fundamentally different attitude toward regional cooperation, bilateral issues never stopped, and achieved very limited high-level interacts. These factors seriously restrained the deepening of this bilateral relationship and the realization of regional cooperation. The analysis would expand according to three levels of system, nation, and policy-maker. Firstly, the collapse of USSR and the disappear of regional monopole structure are considered as the systematic or outer factor; secondly, the domestic factors and the separate consideration of respect national interests led to two countries chose different national developing paths and diplomatic policies; and thirdly, leaders’ personality and will strengthened both countries’ regional competition consciousness.The fourth chapter is case study. We choose a significant case, the territorial and ethnic issue and probe how the systematic, national and policy-maker factors had contributed to the forming of both issues. We believe this would give readers a clearer and more fundamental impression of some of the key questions among Kazakh-Uzbek relationship.SCO is the vital, if not the only, carrier of China’s national interest in CA. It is also an important regional cooperation regime. Thus in the fifth chapter, combining the influence from the Kazakh-Uzbek relationship toward SCO, and the endeavors SCO has made to moderate muti-national relationships in CA, we try to explore the future of Kazakh-Uzbek relationship and, especially SCO’s tomorrow.According to the three levels varieties, we believe outer factors would have a continue influence, and the policy-makers’considerations and judgments would dominate each country’s diplomacy in the long term. As for now, Kazakh-Uzbek relationship would maintain the situation, while the coming Uzbek election could be a possible variety.