As Kazakhstan strives to be one of the most 30 developed nations by 2050, Kazakhstan struggles with transforming its economic system, dealing with regional issues including economic integration and terrorism, and with transforming Kazakhstan’s Soviet-era villages into modern day cities which will assist in Kazakhstan’s long-term development.
One of the main nine concepts of the Kazakhstan Strategy 2050 is industrialization which is required to exploit Kazakhstan’s natural gas and oil reserves. Industrialization and the implementation of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) will attract foreign investors boosting its economy and maintaining Kazakhstan’s relationships with companies and foreign nations.
Kazakhstan, within the history and context of the Soviet Union, was a dumping ground for the Soviet Union’s unwanted persons and used as a nuclear testing ground (specifically Semipalatinsk, now called Semey). Populations are scattered throughout Kazakhstan in large cities once populated by ethnic Russians who left once the Soviet Union disintegrated.
In Kazakhstan, a mono-city is defined by more than 20% of the population working in one industry. Mono cities were part of the planned and centralized economy and when Kazakhstan transitioned to a market economy and “many small and medium sized cities gradually started to fall into decline, which was caused mainly by low competitiveness of local enterprises.” Mono-cities still remained. “Mono-cities” were the industrial and economic backbone for municipalities. The mono-city is an urbanization pattern still prevalent in Russia that is vulnerable to economic shocks. If the company or industry falters or demand sharply drops for the product, the city experiences a sharp economic downturn which results in the loss of wages, jobs, and decline in the condition of living increasing social tensions and possibly violence. This was feared in the mono-city of Temirtau in 2015.
As the national population rose, the population(s) of mono-cities declined by 4% during the last ten years (2005-2015) and the elderly populations of mono-cities exceeded 18% which increases the need for pension funds, more healthcare and a declining population. In Kazakhstan, 9%-10% of the population lives in 27 mono-cities in ten different regions; ten mono-cities are in Karaganda Province alone. Citing statistics from UNESCAP , the mono-cities make up 16.8% of the country’s urban population. Most of the mono-cities are have populations below 50,000 with the exception of eight medium-sized cities with populations between 50,000-100,000, and four larger cities with populations over “100,000–Temirtau, Rudny, Zhanaozen, and Ekibastuzand one large city – Termirtau with population above 150,000.”
Workers at Temirtau, the location of Kazakhstan’s largest steelworks plant, were experiencing imminent wage cuts by 25% in July by the company ArcelorMittal Temirtau . This non-consensual wage decrease violated the country’s Labor Code which recognized the order to be ineffective. ArcelorMittal Temirtau was in a similar situation in February 2015 when the company had to pay wages as part of an agreement with Trade Union of Workers of Mining and Metallurgical Industries. The wages in Temirtau are impacted by Kazakhstan’s non-competitiveness in the steel industries and Russia’s 80% de-evaluation of the ruble according to Kazakh news agency , Tengrinews.
The mono-cities have been the subject of economic diversification by the Kazakh government within the framework of State Program of Regional Development 2020. The mono-cities make modicum contributions to economy as the Kazakh economy is focusing more on global services and natural gas. The State Program of Regional Development strives to “ remove social stress in the mono and small cities, to create the new centers of economic growth” Trade blocks are also causing Kazakhstan economic problems. The State Program on the Development of Mono-cities for 2012-2020 is the first urbanization program for mono-cities approved by the government in May 2012. By the end of the 2015, “141.3 billion KZT [(Kazakh tenge)] [will be spent] on this Program.”
The Development of Mono-cities Program has four goals as identified by the Eurasian Research Institute based in Almaty, Kazakhstan: make the size of the mono-city proportionate to the size of the population; diversify the economy with more SMEs; increase labor mobility in mono- cities; and attract infrastructural development. The program is expected to “increase industrial output by mono-cities by 20%” and reduce poverty and the unemployment rate. Increasing labor mobility would be difficult because of the very nature of mono-cities unless there is a transfer mechanism in place. According to the second phase of the project, focused on entrepreneurship and microloans , those who “willing and having the ability to start or expand their own business may participate in the second phase” and will be executed through employment centers in the mono-cities. The Fund for Financial Support of Agriculture will also assist in the development of the mono-cities. The State Program on the Development of Mono-cities plans to provide microloans worth 1.4 billion tenge.
The four mono-cities of Zyryanovsk, Kurchatov (one of the nuclear test sites, Semipalatinsk-21), Ridder (a mining site) and Serebryansk already have comprehensive programs for future development. Infrastructure was supplied to the Central Asia state by the Soviet Union but they are in disrepair. The infrastructure of the mono-cities should be provided by the government. Foreign direct investment would also increase infrastructure projects. An example would be China and its rejuvenation of the “Silk Road.” Transfers from the national budget development of social and engineering infrastructure supplied mono-cities received 5.5 % of 43.0 billion tenge.
With growth, the cities can begin to accommodate more than just one single dominant industry. Services such as technology and manufacturing are increasing and it would be beneficial to the mono-cities and the Kazakh government if these types of services were introduced into a mono-city. Kazakhstan’s Ministry of the Economy stated that in 2013 the budget of the State Program to Develop Mono-cities allocated 38.3 billion tenge “devoted to operating costs, demolition of empty buildings, and also on reconstruction and building of infrastructure objects, [and to] support of small and medium business.” Renovation of the mono-cities would make the mono-cities more modern, but fails to address their non-competitiveness.
The Government is already working with the United Nations Development Program and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to assess the status of mono-cities and assist in development. The city of Ust-Kamenogorsk (or Oskemen) in Kazakhstan signed up for the UNICEF Program on making cities child friendly by “ improvement of quality of life of children by a way of providing social and legal guarantees.” Their goal is stop and alleviate the urban poverty that mono-cities create. The government has also begun geographic exploration near the mono-cities directed by the Ministry for Investment and Development in the Zhezkazgan, Satpayev, and Ulytau regions. The people in mono-cities would benefit from labor mobility or job placement programs, or job transfer programs. People outside of the mono-cities would benefit from working in the mono-cities. Exporting experts from the economic hubs in the country would also be helpful. The government, as it increases its focus on the information technology sector, should create a technology park near or in the mono-cities which requires updated infrastructure. Education grants and the ability to participate in state economic programs would also assist families in breaking the cycle of poverty.
Privatization of the mono-cities would help solidify Kazakhstan’s transition to the market economy. Another option would be to eliminate the urbanization pattern of mono-cities which privatization would achieve. This urbanization pattern is incongruent with Kazakhstan’s market economy. Understanding that most of the industries are state-owned in the mono-cities some industries and new economic initiatives in the industrial towns be backed by foreign investors. As Kazakhstan struggles with de-evaluation of their currency, and amid reports of food prices rising , the economic situation in the mono cities could become amplified for the Kazakh government posing new challenges and raising new questions about the vitality of these cities.
Greater Eurasia: New Great Game formulate abundant possibilities for Central Asia
The title “New Great Game” became the most conversed topic in the contemporary realm of global politics. The heart of the Eurasian continent, the Central Asian region, already witnessed a colonial battle between Russian and Britain. The position of Geopolitical status more fueled up the conflict. The Great Game furnished an unpleasant impact on the entire Central Asian region; it grasps by the Russian empire. Russia’s century-long predominance over the Central Asia region concluded with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. However, it nevertheless has a massive impact over the countries of Central Asian states Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. Following centuries, they were preceding reappeared different New Grete Game, where the foremost global power countries have engaged. The internal scenario of central Asian states is struggling over hegemonic power. Subsequently, the central Asian nations are well equipped with natural resources like oil, gas like Kazakhstan’s largest uranium producer, that attracts all major countries to penetrate in Central Asia.
The New Great Game impacted both as constraint and opportunity in Central Asia. The central Asian states are adopted the multi-vector approach to the foreign policy due to landlocked country. So, the developed countries are offered various development schemes in the region. Currently, three major powers are Russia, US and China compete with each other to become a prominent player in Central Asia. Every nation is looking for their interest through the region. Nowadays, Washington mostly engaged in the New Great Game, after the US entered in Afghanistan, and it required Central Asian states cooperation to expand the authority of NATO in Eurasian land. Although, following the attack on 9/11, the US mostly keep eyes on terrorism activities and central Asian states are becoming significant for security purpose. Moscow always indeed to the presence in Central Asian internal politics and seems to maintain its status quo. Russia always considered the Central Asian states as his campaign, with the significant military, economic and political influence. Moscow consistently rated Central Asian nations as “soft underbelly”. Russian culture, music, food highly incorporated with Central Asian states, but Moscow seems fallen the economic competition with Beijing. China is somewhat successful in pushing Russian influence in Central Asia.
China expands its control over in the pecuniary sector, Dragon becoming larger trade partner and investor in that region. China’s visionary project ‘Belt and Road initiative’ and China’s strategy to influence and grow its economic power over the Eurasian continent required Central Asian states linear involvement. China shared more than 3000 k.m of the direct border with CA, this is an opportunity for China to enhance its strength and became more dominant rather than other countries. Central Asia is a crucial component in the Geopolitical puzzle. The abundant of natural resource in CA is the primary purpose behind for more intense of New Great Game. The Caspian Sea contains a large amount of natural resource. The superpower countries followed up the pathway of the dependency model, and they create opportunity with precisely inside their acquisition. The new Great Game change the notion of Geopolitics on a broader level. China is steadily expanding its influence over the Eurasian mainland with hegemonic expansion over the south china sea. There is an appearance of another cold war (economic domain) between China and the US; both countries headed for intense competition for global supremacy. That’s why central Asia states played an essential function to determine immense superiority over the Eurasian landmass. All these countries participated in New Great Game implemented the soft power and made an effort to pull Central Asian nations through proffering opportunities. The central Asian States compensated relishes the possibility, although faced reluctance from significant players. The potential development of the Central Asian Region endures the growth of the Eurasian continent.
Territorial Disputes in Central Asia: Myths and Reality
One of the focal points of any state foreign policy is the issue of territorial disputes, irrespective of its geographical size, economic opportunities or geopolitical ambitions. At the same time, in the modern world, the scenario of the use of force as a possible option for China to resolve territorial disputes in Central Asia is hardly probable. None of the parties, including neighboring countries, are interested in intensifying territorial claims and initiating a real conflict. Despite the apparent advantages, a guaranteed response from the international community jeopardizes all benefits for the potential aggressor (for example, Beijing) from possible territorial acquisitions. In addition, the system of control and monitoring has been formed in the region with the direct participation of Russia. The guarantors of the system are, in particular, the SCO and the CSTO; the latter one has a sufficiently deterrent effect on the capacity of regional players to demonstrate invasive intentions.
Meanwhile, the international community developed a civilized way to resolve territorial disputes through diplomatic means such as long-term leasing of land, the creation of joint jurisdictions, etc. China has experience of transferring territories, for example, the 99-year lease of Hong Kong by the United Kingdom or the recognition of Macao as “Chinese territory under Portuguese administration” followed by the signing of the joint Declaration on the question of Macao. Since China became a successful economic power, Beijing has preferred to resolve territorial disputes through diplomatic instruments, rather than from a position of strength.
It should be pointed out that implementing its Belt and Road Initiative, China has never presented it as a charity project. Moreover, the initial goal was the development of the Central and Western regions of China. All foreign countries participating in the initiative expressed their desire to join it on the terms of mutually beneficial development. By accepting China’s offers and agreeing to its loans and investment projects, any of the countries had the opportunity to assess the risks and not participate in them, or to make a choice and develop their own economy on the terms of other financial institutions, such as Western ones. In this case, China acts in the Central Asian region like most major powers interested in strengthening their positions and promoting their political, economic and humanitarian agenda.
Possible allegations of Beijing concluding economic contracts on bonded terms should also be addressed to officials of the “affected” countries who agreed to these proposals from the Chinese side. At the same time, if it appears that one of the parties has not acted in its national interests, this is more a problem of the internal state structure of a particular country and its attitude to the work of its own officials, and to a much lesser extent – a claim to the development of bilateral relations with China.
It is also necessary to distinguish the official position of the state from the statements of individuals who often act in their own interests. For example, an article with the title “Why Kazakhstan seeks to return to China,” which is given as an example in the publication “Land leases and territorial claims of China in Central Asia and the South Caucasus,” was written by an anonymous blogger with just over 80 thousand subscribers (insignificant number according to the Chinese standards). An analysis of how the news was spread geographically by international media, as well as the contents of official statements, confirms the opinion of experts-sinologists that it was an attempt to gain popularity and “collect likes,” and has nothing in common with the official position of Beijing.
Another example of using the foreign policy agenda in the internal political struggle is the statement of the leader of the opposition party of Tajikistan, R. Zoirov, who accused China of moving the borderline 20 kilometers deeper into the territory of Tajikistan.
On the eve of the presidential elections in 2013, Tajikistan’s opposition once again tried to “accuse authorities of surrendering land to China” in the framework of the 2002 border demarcation agreement. China claimed 28 thousand square kilometers of Tajikistan’s territory, but as a result of the negotiations, it received just over 1 thousand square kilometers of high-altitude land unsuitable for life, without proven volumes of large deposits. The results of negotiations can be evaluated in different ways, but each country has the right to seek convenient forms of dispute resolution and debt repayment. In addition, this agreement was ratified by the government of Tajikistan only in 2011. The official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Tajikistan described the statement of the opposition as a provocation, due to the fact that the author acts in his own interest. Later, it was revealed that Zoirov’s statement refers to 2011 and was “made two years ago and published just now.” According to R. Zoirov, he determined the distance to the border based on the statements of local residents. The official authorities of Tajikistan, China, Russia and other regional powers ignored information about China’s occupation of Tajikistan’s territory as unreliable.
Recognizing the high public sensitivity of transferring land from one state to repay credit obligations to another, it is necessary to proceed from the analysis of the contents of specific international agreements, the motives for signing them by current authorities, and the national interests of the parties involved. Otherwise, one is likely to discover a distorted interpretation of key events in line with the populist rhetoric of an unknown blogger or to be the recipient of information propaganda carried out by major powers competing for regional influence.
From our partner RIAC
From Central Asia to the Black Sea
In early June, China unveiled a new transportation corridor when a rail cargo of 230 tons of electrical appliances worth some $2,6 million arrived in the Uzbek capital of Tashkent. Though distant from the South Caucasus, the development nevertheless has a direct impact on the geopolitics of the South Caucasus energy and transport corridor.
For centuries, Central Asia has been notorious for the lack of connectivity. Highways, railroads and pipelines were solely directed northwards towards Russian heartland. Geography also constrained the development of alternatives, but the problem is that other routes were also purposefully neglected during the Soviet times. Therefore, nowadays breaking these geographical boundaries equals to decreasing Russian influence in Central Asia.
Indeed, over the past 30 years, crucial changes have taken place where newly developed east-west transport links (from China to Central Asia, then South Caucasus) allow the region to be more integrated with the outside world. The primary motivator for this is China. The country strives to involve itself into the region’s economics and politics and, specifically, build ties with arguably the region’s most important geopolitical player – Uzbekistan. Beijing has already taken several important steps. For instance, China has become Uzbekistan’s top economic partner through growing trade and direct investment. Take the most recent example, Beijing-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) will lend $100 million to Uzbekistan to help deal with the coronavirus pandemic and future public health disasters.
The new China-Uzbekistan corridor is some 295 km shorter and cuts five days off the standard 15 days-corridor which goes through Kazakhstan and Russia to reach Europe. As different forecasts indicate, the Kazakhstan-Russia corridor could lose some 10-15% of Chinese freight per year to the new China-Uzbekistan route – a significant number considering the massive amount of goods that move between between Europe and China.
What is crucial here is that the only viable route to ship freight to Europe from Uzbekistan is across the Caspian to Azerbaijan, Georgia and the Black Sea. Another possibility would be sending goods via the Turkmenistan and Afghanistan, then Iran and Turkey. However general insecurity along this route makes the Caspian option more promising.
These infrastructure changes in distant Central Asia as well as steady growth of shipments from China will further boost the fragile South Caucasus transport and energy corridor, which struggles to compete with enormous trade routes which go through Russia and elsewhere.
What makes the Caspian routes more interesting is the progress made in port development in Azerbaijan and Georgia. The ports of Baku and a small city of Alat have notably improved their infrastructure over the past several years. Located to the south of Baku, Alat is particularly promising as an estimated transshipment of the new port complex is potentially up to 25 million tons of cargo and 1 million TEU per year.
Similar trends of improving infrastructure take place along the rest of the South Caucasus corridor. In March, the Georgian government granted the APM Terminals a permit to start the expansion of Potin port. Essentially the project, which will add more than 1000 local jobs, involves the construction of a separate new deep-water multifunctional port (officially still a part of Poti port).
The project consists of two major phases: first stage of $250 million will take nearly 2-2,5 years to complete and will involve the development of a 1 700-meter-long breakwater and a quay with a depth of 13.5 meters. A 400-meter-long multifunctional quay for processing dry bulk cargo and further 150 000 TEUs will be added; the second stage envisages a 300-meter-long container quay. If all goes as planned, 1 million TEU yearly container capacity could be expected. What is more important for the infrastructure of the eastern Black Sea region and the geopolitics of transcontinental transshipment, the expanded Poti port would have the capacity to receive Panamax vessels.
Expansion of Poti will have regional implications. The port already enjoys the role of the largest gateway in the country and a major outlet for Azerbaijan’s and Armenia’s trade with Europe. For instance, liquids, passenger ferries, dry bulk and container traffic go through Poti. Moreover, Poti port also serves as an alternative route for exporting wheat from Central Asia to the Black Sea and elsewhere.
As the work on the Poti expansion speeds up similar developments are taking place in Batumi. In 2019 Wondernet Express, Trammo and the government of Georgia announced plans to build a new terminal with total investment cap of 17,5 million euros. More importantly, the new facility will store up to 60 000 tons of mineral fertilizers coming from Central Asia through Azerbaijan.
From a wider geopolitical perspective, both port expansions enjoy US government support as American business interests are deeply intertwined. PACE terminals, a company which operates in the port of Poti for almost 30 years, is partially owned by a US-based company. This connection raises a possible longer-term vision of Poti’s and Batumi’s development as gateways not only for Georgia, but generally for the South Caucasus and Central Asia.
Overall, these connectivity trends will reinvigorate Trans-Caspian shipping. Moreover, though considered by many as unrealistic, the dormant Trans-Caspian Pipeline (TCP), could gain traction. There is more to the story. I have mentioned the US support for the Georgian ports. Europe and Turkey share an identical position. All parties are interested in breaking Russia’s grip on gas export routes from Central Asia. Support for the east-west corridor across the South Caucasus has been present since the break-up of the Soviet Union, but rarely there have been such promising trends as there are now: steadily increasing China-Europe shipping; Chinese Belt and Road Initiative’s expansion into Central Asia; gradually improving rail-road and ports infrastructure in Georgia and Azerbaijan.
On a negative side, much still remains to be done. For instance, in Kyrgyzstan, through which the new China-Uzbekistan route goes, Chinese cargo has to be shipped by road which complicates shipment operations. Nearly the entire 400 km of the Kyrgyz section of the railway still needs to be built. So far, no solution is in sight as difficult mountainous landscape and Russian opposition complicate the issue. But the overall picture, nevertheless, is clear. Central Asia is gradually opening up, shipment across the Caspian increases and the expansion of the Georgian ports takes place creating a line of connectivity.
Author’s note: first published in Caucasuswatch
Ghana to Provide 550,000 People with Improved Water and Sanitation Services
The World Bank Board of Executive Directors today approved $125 million from the International Development Association for the Greater Accra...
Rosewood conservation: A success story from Madagascar
For Madagascar farmer Edmond, who goes by one name, it was a breakthrough. In 2019 he perfected a complicated technique...
Measuring Stakeholder Capitalism: Top Global Companies Take Action on Universal ESG Reporting
The World Economic Forum today released a set of universal environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics and disclosures to measure...
The Greek-Turkish Standoff: A New Source of Instability in the Eastern Mediterranean
Since 2011, Eastern Mediterranean affairs have mainly been marked by instability due to the civil wars in Libya and Syria....
Two paths before Latin America: Democracy or dictatorship
The Latin American region is at a crossroads, with a choice not between the political left or the right; between...
UNWTO Launches Comprehensive Tourism Recovery Tracker
As growing numbers of countries around the world ease restrictions on travel, the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has launched a...
Pakistan’s War with COVID-19: A Victory for Now
From rethinking health care systems to the redefining of global movement and migration, the coronavirus has undoubtedly changed the world...
Africa2 days ago
Celebrating the Least Corrupt Country: Rwanda
Europe3 days ago
Political will is needed to foster multilateralism in Europe
Africa3 days ago
Russia-Africa relations: The Way Forward
International Law2 days ago
Freedom of religion in the African Human Rights System
Russia2 days ago
Don’t Kid Yourself, Russia will Never Abandon Belarus
Eastern Europe2 days ago
Azerbaijan Vision 2020
Middle East3 days ago
The Case For Israel- Book Review
Newsdesk3 days ago
Global solution to COVID-19 in sight, ‘we sink or we swim together’