Silence is golden? Silences as strategic narratives in Central Asian states’ response to the Ukrainian crisis – A Seminar with Dr. Timur Dadabaev
Dr. Timur Dadabaev is a Professor of International Relations and the Director of the Special Program for Japanese and Eurasian Studies at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Tsukuba, Japan. His last book is Decolonizing Central Asian International Relations: Beyond Empires (2021, Routledge).
This talk, chaired by Dr Matteo Fumagalli, introduces the article by Dr. Dadabaev and Dr. Shigeto Sonoda published in the International Journal of Asian Studies (2023), 20, 193–215 (doi:10.1017/S1479591422000183) “Silence is Golden? Silences as strategic narratives in Central Asian states’ response to the Ukrainian crisis”
This report was written by Vittoria Gattini, current MECACS intern and student in the Middle East Caucasus Central Asia Security Studies MLitt programme at the University of St. Andrews.
In ‘Silence is Golden?’ Professor Dadabaev explored the responses by the Central Asian countries to the Russian invasion of Ukraine through the lens of silence as a strategic narrative. Silence, he argued in his talk, allows us to shed light on what can be construed as a form of resistance in the context of the Russian-Central Asian dynamics.
The main argument of the talk centered on the fact that Central Asian (CA) states have opted for a “strategic silence” regarding the current Ukrainian crisis. This strategy reflects ideological and geographical factors, along with the fact that Central Asia’s information space is dominated by Russian media and expressed in Russian-language. Considering “strategic silence,” we must keep in mind that this also reflects the complicated domestic situation in CA states and their historic and current dependence on Russia, along with the modern regional coexistence with China. These hegemons are not sympathetic to the influence that EU and other western entities hold in CA and this “strategic silence” might be understood as a way to voice – while not vocally – their disagreement while keeping a safe distance from the repercussions of an openly anti-war position.
A look at different strategic narratives needs to be given and silence has to be put into a constructivist logic in order to fully appreciate its importance in CA’s policy. Most importantly, in order to analyze CA’s response and understand it without favoring the simplistic explanation that they choose neutrality, it is important to look at historic ties with Russia. In fact, there is an ongoing trend of assistance and cooperation that has shaped a culture of mutual support; hence, CA governments have avoided openly criticizing Russia at such a vulnerable time, even if they disagree with the Russian decision to invade Ukraine (2022:195).
Silence, in this case, can be understood as a form of resistance which chooses not to be explicit, yet reflects the needs of smaller, less salient states such as those in CA in order to avoid being victimized (punished by Russia or sanctioned by the West) for taking any stance in a conflict that they essentially consider part of the ever-lasting battle between the West and Russia (2022:196). It is important to note that CA countries might adopt different strategies regarding different conflicts based on which powers are involved and consequently their relations with them.
Strategic narratives construct a shared meaning of the past, present, and future and are used by different states to sway target-audiences trough different framings of formation, projection and reception. In this case, strategic silence adopted by CA countries are the result of a postcolonial allowance and disengagement which, according to the authors, is the ejection of the universal principle of peace and security and the questioning of these policies in the local context.
Dr. Dadabaev’s talk also focused on the dynamics between CA and Russia in three specific fields: sources of information, education, and labour markets.
Russia is particularly influential when one looks at the sources of information and the news that CA countries are exposed to. Russian is the official language in both Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, while in Tajikistan, it has the status of the language for interethnic communication and in Uzbekistan it is used in public institutions. According to different sources, Russian is the primary language of access to information – and thus a significant soft-power resource.
CA countries are also heavily dependent on Russia for education and employment opportunities. For example, remittances sent back to Central Asia from migrants in Russia account for up to 30% of GDP in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. While English-speaking countries remain the primary choice concerning educational opportunities, Russian remains the language that students are expected to acquire during their academic career. This is because employment in Russia represents an easier pathway to obtaining highly-valued Russian citizenship. Moreover, Russian universities are strengthening their policy of establishing Central Asian branches and campuses of Russian universities or joint universities in the region to promote Russian-language-based education.