From regional integration to soft institutionalism: what kind of regionalism for Central Asia?

Abstract

The first term of Shavkat Mirziyoyev, successor to Islam Karimov as president of Uzbekistan, has brought some liberal reforms to the domestic politics of Uzbekistan and also opened the country to higher levels of cooperation with its neighbours. Mirzoyev’s proactive position towards strengthening cooperation in Central Asia and support of other regional states has since 2017 attracted the interest of scholars to the dynamics of regionalization in Central Asia (CA). The consultative meetings among CA leaders, cooperation among their governments’ strategic think tanks, and official discussions on mutual visa recognition between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are all evidence of increased collaboration in the region. Experts and journalists in the region have started to talk about regional integration in Central Asia and the possibilities for establishing a regional organization. Although the progress in cooperation has been significant, we argue that it’s not feasible and not necessary to create regional organizations at this stage, and suggest soft institutionalism as a possible way of strengthening relations in CA. Pursuing regional integration in CA that necessitates hard institutionalism (e.g., EU, EAEU) may result in ink-on-paper initiatives. It may also activate strategic rivalry among external actors for influence in the region, as it would require re-negotiation of commitments from CA states that are members of other organizations. Soft institutionalism (e.g., ASEAN) is more appropriate, as it may lead to the strengthening of collaboration without renegotiating existing commitments, while also avoiding unnecessary institutional burdens. Soft institutionalism or soft regionalism (the terms are used interchangeably here) is based on informality, pragmatism, nonconfrontational bargaining, and consensus building (Acharya, 1997, 2009; Söderbaum, 2016; ZHAO, 1998). Hard regionalism relies on formal structures, delegating of power to supranational bodies, and legal agreements (T. A. Börzel, 2016; Söderbaum, 2016; ZHAO, 1998). When compared to the EU, which is a model of hard regionalism, Central Asian regionalism is a failed project. Its revival and future success are often associated with the ability to build formal structures and institutions. The EU model is often proposed as a benchmark for regionalism in CA (Tolipov, 2017). However, we argue that given the empirical reality of domestic and international relations in CA, the soft form of regionalism is a more viable alternative at this stage. Two main research questions addressed in this paper are: (1) Why do we need a new debate on Central Asian regionalism? (2) What kind of regionalism project is viable for CA?