Ethnopolitical Issues and the Emergence of Nation-States in Central Asia

Abstract

Unlike the colonial empires in the first half of the present century, the Soviet Union collapsed so abruptly that all its constituent parts found themselves more or less unprepared for independent existence. Even bureaucracy, the most developed element of state machinery, was in most cases inadequate to perform all the functions required in the independent state. In every republic, except Russia, it had virtually no experience in defence matters, external relations and foreign trade. None of the newly independent states were able to establish effective control over their borders and in a number of cases (Georgia, Moldova, Azerbaijan, to some extent also Russia) even parts of their territory. Economically, all the non-Russian republics were closely tied to Russia, which was the principal supplier of oil, gas and most industrial equipment and the chief importer of raw materials, industrial and agricultural goods from these republics. From virtually any point of view, the former Soviet republics in 1991, particularly the southern ones, were far less ready for independence than most of the former colonies in Asia in Africa, which Robert Jackson called quasi-states,¹ because they are perpetuated by international law and external aid but could scarcely survive without such external support. As Fred Riggs writes about post-imperial regions, ‘In some of these states, small groups of ambitious elites have been able to defeat their rivals and seize control by means of violence and authoritarian methods.