Failure Of Uzbekistan’s Economic Statecraft-case Study Of Kyrgyzstan (2010-2014)

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there were a lot of problems in the territory and energy sectors between the Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Before 2010, two Central Asian republics had an agreement on gas supply issues, and also come to a compromise on territorial issues. However, the year of 2010 was a starting point of deterioration of the Kyrgyz-Uzbek relations. Since 2010 economic statecraft had been actively promoted by the Uzbek side:gas outage 4 times, reducing the volume of gas supply 8 times.In order to resume the gas supply they offered unacceptable conditions for Kyrgyzstan-to change its policy regarding the demarcation and delimitation of borders. Uzbekistan used its economic tool such as a gas in order to get a corridor from Kyrgyzstan, which would connect Uzbekistan’s mainland with its biggest enclave Sokh which contradict to national interests of Kyrgyzstan.This study is aimed to answer primary research question:Why did economic statecraft fail to achieve desired goals when Uzbekistan cut gas supply to Kyrgyzstan in 2010-2014? Significance of the research lies in theoretical explanation of unsuccessful implementation of the political goals of Uzbekistan and identification of causes of the failure of Uzbekistan’s economic statecraft towards Kyrgyzstan.Economic statecraft by David Baldwin was used in this study as a theoretical framework:the usage of economic tools to achieve foreign policy goals. This theory explains why economic statecraft does not work, when it’s used for political purposes rather than economic. Economic statecraft which was applied by Uzbekistan has led to the fact that Uzbekistan has failed to achieve the desired goals.In 2014, after the decision of the Kyrgyzstan to sell its national gas company "KyrgyzGaz" to Russian oil company "Gazprom", Uzbekistan has lost the ability to use gas as a lever of pressure on Kyrgyzstan, as it did in previous years to solve border issues in their favour. Kyrgyzstan has refused to comply with the requirements of Uzbekistan to exchange territories. Kyrgyzstan looked for an alternative exits from the energy crisis, the consequence of which was the sale of the national company "KyrgyzGaz" to Russia’s "Gazprom". Therefore, Kyrgyzstan has found alternative source of gas supply from Russia consequently Uzbekistan has failed to use its economic statecraft to pressure Kyrgyzstan’s government decision on territorial disputes.Foreign policy - it is the actions by a country against other countries to protect their national interests. In achieving these objectives, the country uses specific tools or ways of achieving international objectives.Countries have numerous tools with which they can try to achieve their foreign policy objectives.There are several types of such tools:-Militaristic tool deal with penetration and intervention. This is achieved through methods such as propaganda, military support, removal of political leaders, terrorism.-Diplomatic means of communication with another country through bilateral negotiations at the level of heads of state and government.-Economic statecraft has an impact on the economy of another country. Economic statecraft may be positive or negative. The establishment of favourable tariff rates or shopping credits, the granting of foreign aid and loans, encouraging joint investments and similar actions against countries considered to be positive economic methods. Restricting trade or imposing an embargo, a review of aid and the exclusion of investment-All of these relate to negative economic statecraft.Today the economies of all countries operate under the conditions of globalization and the deepening interdependence. This standard is relatively efficient, but not a unique instrument of foreign policy used by a country with a strong economy against weaker opponents.In international law the use of economic statecraft is not clearly defined. Its effectiveness is very difficult and sometimes impossible to measure. Unfortunately for government agencies there are no agencies responsible for their implementation. The mechanism of such sanctions remains complex and vague.Many critics agree that the concept of the strategy of economic statecraft is the idea of causing harm and suffering to people of another country, after the people influenced their government.Country applying such economic statecraft is also exposed to various risks of damage to its own economy. The country is the subject of the risks retaliatory sanctions, the deteriorating political image and the economy of the state suffers direct and indirect losses associated with decreased sales and revenue, decrease in volume.The use of economic statecraft in the context of globalization of world trade is obviously not mutually beneficial strategy. With the introduction of economic instruments of foreign economic activity of the state object in any case will not be completely blocked, and the temporal gaps in the economy will quickly fill alternative markets and companies.The pipeline as an instrument of foreign policyKyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan are very closely interrelated with each other in all spheres. Difficult relations between Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan are observed since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.The main problems in relations between States are:-The incomplete process of delimitation and demarcation of the state border and the presence of a large number of disputed areas;-Unsolved issues of ownership of oil and gas fields;-Obstruction from the Republic of Uzbekistan in the development of trade and economic relations;-Distribution of water resources.The problems of demarcation and delimitation of bordersFor more than 20 years, the Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan were not able to come to a compromise on the issue of delimitation and demarcation of borders. Territorial claims have become an integral part of bilateral relations, which are tense as the political and economic spheres.Now, the Kyrgyzstan part of the Kyrgyz-Uzbek border is considered to be the most problematic. The complexity of the issue primarily stems from the fact that the parties are unable to agree on mutually acceptable documents that could be referred. Until 2010 Kyrgyz-Uzbek Commission for delimitation and demarcation, through a series of mutual concessions agreed to 1050 km from the existing km 1295 an important role in bilateral relations between these countries and plays a factor in the enclave. After April 2010 the Commission was paralyzed and negotiations on the issue of ownership of the remaining 58 of the contested parts of land and access to the Uzbek enclaves in Kyrgyzstan:Sokh and Shakhimardan, as well as to the Kyrgyz enclave in Uzbekistan, Barak suspended.The distribution of water resourcesAs a country at the lower reaches of theNaryn River, Uzbekistan has a water issue and depends entirely on the neighbouring Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.Uzbekistan predicted a threat to their strategic interests, which aims to realize in the life of Kyrgyzstan, speaking more precisely, in the construction of a hydroelectric power station Kambar-ATA-1. As you know, with the construction of this hydropower plant Kyrgyzstan will get an opportunity to develop the Toktogul reservoir in the mode of any time of year. If the whole year will accumulate water in Toktogul, Uzbekistan will undergo extreme difficulties prevent the flow of irrigation water to Uzbek farmers. Currently the possibility of the construction of four new hydropower projects is under consideration. So they are categorically against the construction of hydropower plants in the territory of Kyrgyzstan.Regarding the issue of conflict between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan on the use of water resources it should be noted that it is based on the fact that Kyrgyzstan makes demands financial compensations for the work of hydropower plant in the irrigation mode in the interests of Uzbekistan.The energy crisis in the South of KyrgyzstanA natural resource, such as natural gas, has often been at the center of controversial issues. Uzbekistan, possessing a large and rich supply of resources was often master of the situation.Conflicts over unpaid debts for gas deliveries came exactly to the point that Uzbekistan stopped the supply to Kyrgyzstan. Also Uzbekistan has repeatedly stopped supply of natural gas without explanation. After long negotiations it became clear that Uzbekistan wanted concessions on territorial issues. And the desire to build a hydroelectric power plant was one of the reasons for the refusal of Tashkent to export gas to Kyrgyzstan.Uzbekistan uses the gas factor as a way to pressure the Kyrgyz leadership on many issues. Protracted gas negotiations directly affect the South of Kyrgyzstan, as this region is totally dependent on Uzbek gas.With the interruption of gas supply to the South of the country even more were against Kyrgyz-Uzbek relations. Difficulties in clarifying the boundaries, inconsistencies in the energy and communication projects, and the internal and foreign policies of states usually do not lead to very good relations between the two countries. Because communication is interrupted, the Uzbek side stopped responding to requests and appeals of the Kyrgyz side.Uzbekistan has long asserted a claim for provision of corridor to Sokh enclave. To clarify the boundaries a lot of questions associated with thousands of hectares of land, the fate of the reservoirs enclaves. Linking gas supply with provision of corridor to the Sokh is one of those difficult questions.An attempt to resolve border issues has not led to positive results. On 26 February 2001 was adopted by the Kyrgyz-Uzbek Memorandum on delimitation of the state border, which stressed the "reasonableness" of the compounds of the enclave of Sokh with Uzbekistan. In exchange, the Kyrgyz proposed equal in size to the territory of Uzbekistan. However, the agreement was not implemented, as proposed to the exchange land was lifeless mountain range and was rejected by Bishkek.According to experts, in recent years in relations between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan is a constant increase in tension. Uzbekistan wants to keep its dominance over gas in the region. In this regard, Kyrgyzstan began to look for alternative ways out of the gas collapse.In this paper I will examine negative economic statecraft and more specifically-the ability to use energy resources for political purposes-the "gas weapon".In today’s world monopoly on energy resources becomes a "trump card" in the hands of politicians. These factors have radically changed attitude on the role of organic energy in the world today. They have become an important factor in political relations at the interstate and regional level, a full-fledged subject of political science research.This study is significant as it aims to identify the reasons why economic statecraft is not always successfully implementing the foreign policy objectives of certain states on the example of Uzbekistan.This study aims to answer primary research question:Why did economic statecraft fail to achieve desired goals when Uzbekistan cut gas supply to Kyrgyzstan in 2010-2014? Therefore I argue that Kyrgyzstan has found alternative source of gas supply from Russia consequently Uzbekistan has failed to use its economic statecraft to pressure Kyrgyzstan’s government decision on territorial disputes.