Kazak-Kyrgyz Integration Not on Nazarbaev's Agenda
Kazak-Kyrgyz Integration Not on Nazarbaev's Agenda
Despite the rhetoric about closer integration between Kazakstan and Kyrgyzstan and the creation of a Central Asian Union that surrounded the President Nursultan Nazarbaev’s recent visit to Bishkek, NBCentralAsia analysts say the Kazak leader’s sole aim was to look after his country’s economic interests.
Nazarbaev’s visit to Kyrgyzstan on April 26-27 produced an agreement to set up two new bilateral structures called the Supreme Interstate Council and the Council of Foreign Ministers, to coordinate cooperation between the two countries.
A joint statement issued by Nazarbaev and his counterpart Kurmanbek Bakiev said Kyrgyzstan could play a key role in creating a future union of Central Asian states.
The idea of a union has been floated repeatedly by Nazarbaev, and many analysts interpreted his trip to Bishkek as a way of taking the unification process forward, starting with integration with Kyrgyzstan as a pilot project, and perhaps even the creation of a common federal state.
Valentin Bogatyrev, an analyst based in Bishkek, said the bilateral format would work much better for Kyrgyzstan and Kazakstan than multilateral cooperation involving all Central Asian states.
“This bilateral form of cooperation, on which relations between Kazakstan and Kyrgyzstan are to be based, is the most promising and effective. I think this [framework] will make it possible to solve many issues related to harmonising economic rules, cooperation and mutual investments much faster,” said Bogatyrev.
He added, “There should be no talk of integration - no one is going to unite with anyone else.”
Dosym Satpaev, a political scientist and head of the Risk Assessment Group in Kazakstan, said the emphasis in the Kazak-Kyrgyz relationship had shifted to trade and economic relations, while political interests had taken a back seat.
“Having Kyrgyzstan as a political partner doesn’t interest us. Kyrgyzstan is first and foremost an economic partner for us,” said Satpaev. “Kazakstan has a particular problem – a surplus of domestic funds that are constantly hunting for access to other markets. The main goal of this visit was to look after Kazakstan’s economic interests.”
According to Eduard Poletaev, editor-in-chief of the Mir Yevrazii journal based in Kazakstan, the political development paths taken by the two countries are now very different, so Nazarbaev’s visit focused on investment issues.
The complex rules of the game that prevail in Kyrgyzstan mean that a political decision that Kazakstan wanted to see happening could still be stalled, either by a no vote in parliament or by some other means, he said.
But Poletaev noted that in terms of Kyrgyz domestic politics, it was important for Bakiev that he secured Nazarbaev’s backing, since his legitimacy is being challenged by the opposition, which staged a nine-day protest in April.
“Nazarbaev’s visit created the foundations for Bakiev to serve out his term until 2010,” said Poletaev.
(News Briefing Central Asia draws comment and analysis from a broad range of political observers across the region.)
Nazarbaev’s visit to Kyrgyzstan on April 26-27 produced an agreement to set up two new bilateral structures called the Supreme Interstate Council and the Council of Foreign Ministers, to coordinate cooperation between the two countries.
A joint statement issued by Nazarbaev and his counterpart Kurmanbek Bakiev said Kyrgyzstan could play a key role in creating a future union of Central Asian states.
The idea of a union has been floated repeatedly by Nazarbaev, and many analysts interpreted his trip to Bishkek as a way of taking the unification process forward, starting with integration with Kyrgyzstan as a pilot project, and perhaps even the creation of a common federal state.
Valentin Bogatyrev, an analyst based in Bishkek, said the bilateral format would work much better for Kyrgyzstan and Kazakstan than multilateral cooperation involving all Central Asian states.
“This bilateral form of cooperation, on which relations between Kazakstan and Kyrgyzstan are to be based, is the most promising and effective. I think this [framework] will make it possible to solve many issues related to harmonising economic rules, cooperation and mutual investments much faster,” said Bogatyrev.
He added, “There should be no talk of integration - no one is going to unite with anyone else.”
Dosym Satpaev, a political scientist and head of the Risk Assessment Group in Kazakstan, said the emphasis in the Kazak-Kyrgyz relationship had shifted to trade and economic relations, while political interests had taken a back seat.
“Having Kyrgyzstan as a political partner doesn’t interest us. Kyrgyzstan is first and foremost an economic partner for us,” said Satpaev. “Kazakstan has a particular problem – a surplus of domestic funds that are constantly hunting for access to other markets. The main goal of this visit was to look after Kazakstan’s economic interests.”
According to Eduard Poletaev, editor-in-chief of the Mir Yevrazii journal based in Kazakstan, the political development paths taken by the two countries are now very different, so Nazarbaev’s visit focused on investment issues.
The complex rules of the game that prevail in Kyrgyzstan mean that a political decision that Kazakstan wanted to see happening could still be stalled, either by a no vote in parliament or by some other means, he said.
But Poletaev noted that in terms of Kyrgyz domestic politics, it was important for Bakiev that he secured Nazarbaev’s backing, since his legitimacy is being challenged by the opposition, which staged a nine-day protest in April.
“Nazarbaev’s visit created the foundations for Bakiev to serve out his term until 2010,” said Poletaev.
(News Briefing Central Asia draws comment and analysis from a broad range of political observers across the region.)
