Dr. Russell Zanca, Professor of Anthropology at Northeastern Illinois University
In this presentation, I examine the state (or status) and intra-regional conditions of sovereignty in post-Soviet Central Asia. The argument is not exactly one of political success or failure, but rather the very successes and failures that exist in Central Asia from the standpoints of political integrity and political development—despite or because of dictatorial rule and concomitant degrees of freedom of conscience, economic decision-making, etc. The latter political development subsumes economic and cultural development. Recently, scholars and pundits have meaningfully examined many hyper-nationalist aspects of Central Asian countries’ politics. The basic argument here is that nationalism has prevented the kind of intra-regional cooperation that would have fueled greater development and freedom throughout Central Asia. Generally speaking, nationalism may be necessary to territorial independence, but it is rarely considered positive in terms of multicultural tolerance and human freedom by most social scientists. While there may be much to recommend this position, I look to data and analyses going back more than twenty five years to compare different visions of independence rooted in the late Soviet period, areas for national and regional comity and strife, and treaties and agreements that have fostered and retarded individual and regional growth and freedom. Topically, if nationalism has defeated a more cooperative regionalism, what does it mean for Central Asians in terms of support for neighboring ethnic relatives, such as the Uyghurs in China, and what may it spell for a Russia perhaps moving toward a reconstituted Soviet Union? In the end, I assess what it means to speak of successes and failures from Central Asian positions as well as those from what we think of as international standards and norms.
