In the reassessment of identity, it is necessary for nations, countries and peoples to clearly take into account the impact on the state of security and stability of the future common space of coexistence. It is important that this does not act as a trigger for the Eurasian security system. Sanzhar Valiev reflects on the world order in the context of the analysis of the Valdai Club Annual report “The World From the Bottom Up or The Masterpieces of Eurasian Architecture”. The article was prepared specially for the 21st Annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club.
I not only studied the latest Valdai Club report “The World From the Bottom Up or The Masterpieces of Eurasian Architecture” several times, but also looked through all the available reports on dynamics, which can be found on the Club's website, starting with an analysis of Russian-American relations “Reconfiguration, Not Just a Reset” in already-distant 2009, after the first crisis.
To some extent, this turned out to be a very consistent, interconnected, and one might say chronicled reading, which provides a very voluminous picture of what is happening through several stages, from gradually increasing anxiety to the moment of passing the points of no return and reaching certain forks in the road where we are now.
The last report sets a calming tone, the first lines talk about “getting used to the absence of predetermination” and “the fading of talk about the world order.”
That is, now we are in the process of substantive reflection and discussion of how we can move forward.
Therefore, I would like to express my deep gratitude to the authors of the report for such an accurate depiction of the international situation - the signature style of the Valdai Club experts and the result of painstaking everyday analysis.
I would highlight, perhaps, three aspects regarding the formation of a new architecture of Eurasia - the system-forming continent of the planet. The first point, which is important for countries like Uzbekistan and many others, is the argument that indicates a way out of the general confrontation and assumes that we will not slide into a larger catastrophe.
I would also include here the decline of the trend of bloc construction and the division of the world into various groups.
In my opinion, this is important for understanding the configuration and balance of power, as well as for outlining the contours of future Eurasian security.
The second aspect is the statement of the fact that the "old world" is not falling apart completely, there is a transformation of the previous institutions, orders and norms with the creation of stabilization mechanisms that protect against tragic scenarios.
Central Asia, for example, continues to maintain its commitment to a broad international cooperation, a multilateral approach, and fulfills its obligations within the framework of those global governance institutions of which we are a part.
In Uzbekistan, we have a proverb: "do not tear down the old house without building a new one." This principle has always been in the tradition of our peoples, and many others share it.
Therefore, I agree with the conclusions of the report that it is necessary to improve the existing tools and adjust them to suit ourselves and our interests and provide the solution to our own problems, which also change with the growth of our countries, demographically, economically and in other parameters.
The third point is the increase in the significance and role of medium and small countries in world affairs through the formation of certain regional ecosystems to ensure stability and sustainable development. At the same time, it is necessary to be heard, to be in the trends of the main international agendas.
Yes, the report mentions the absence of dominant architects, but of course there are engineers for such projects. One could say there are whole portfolios on the table - from large to small ones.
They are also mentioned in the report: the Greater Eurasian Partnership, the Belt and Road Initiative, the North-South project.
Actually, the intensification of regional cooperation in Central Asia is a fairly successful and promising format initiated from the bottom up.
In this regard, it is necessary to ensure the success of regional cooperation within the framework of various organisations.
Thus, these listed topics are not the only ones, but the most important from the point of view of the Central Asian countries.
Returning to the main question of building a Eurasian security system, it is worth noting that the report clearly reveals the objective conditions that require consideration when approaching its construction.
I would just like to draw attention to several significant points.
A very important and widespread problem now is the search for the identity of nations, countries and peoples in Eurasia; in some places it is a struggle for preservation, while in others it is a rethinking.
In this reassessment of one's identity, it is necessary to clearly take into account the impact on the state of security and stability of the future common space of coexistence. It is important that this does not act as a trigger for the Eurasian security system.
In this regard, our Central Asian region can act as a kind of model for future Eurasian cooperation. In recent years, we have done a lot to stabilise our region and to build effective, mutually beneficial cooperation with all partners in Eurasia.
