Paper abstract:

Iran stressed an East-oriented policy since the 2000s, an essential part of which has been relations with Russia pursued more actively, especially between 2005 and 2012 in declarative and operational policies. However, the cardinal issue associated with these relations is that despite the East-oriented attitude of Iran's foreign policy during that period, the political relations were practically limited and this was followed by a decline in bilateral economic exchanges where the impact of international sanctions - UN Security Council-enacted sanctions with the participation of Western and Eastern countries - was of great significance in this regard. Therefore, the question arises as to how and to what extent the international sanctions affected the decline in Tehran-Moscow relations in the era of Eastern policies? The core idea of this article is that "the decline in the two countries' bilateral relations is mainly affected by the international sanctions, and these sanctions have drastically alleviated their bilateral relations challenging Iran's East-oriented policy due to Russia's adherence to the international security and normative regimes arising from international arrangements, as well as Russia's affirmative vote to UN Security Council's resolutions on embargos against Iran on one hand, and their binding nature on the other hand." This article employs a method of correlation of variables to show the association between the sanctions and the two countries' relations, and a qualitative method of analyzing data available in libraries and websites alongside the experts' viewpoints is acquired to analyze Russia's reasons to join the UN resolutions on sanctions against Iran.

Paper abstract:

Soviet power did every effort to build “Homo-Sovieticus” ignoring major traditional values. Representatives of all strata willing or proposing reforms for better conditions for the population were under the threat of repressions. Torture and repressions were of high instruments of terror during whole existence of Soviet State.

Soviet repressions were held in 3 phases throughout the state and in four phases in SSR of Uzbekistan where “Cotton Affair” was a specific policy. Peasants being aware of the fertility level better and suggesting growing other things besides cotton were called sabotagers, clergymen were massively arrested or exiled, poets and writers were executed as “dissidents”, politician were accused of being foreign agents.

The accusations were in the following sequence: 1) ignoring the fulfilment of state commands; 2) counterrevolution and anti-Soviet propaganda; 3) sabotage; 4) having connection with fascism; 5) reconnaissance.

Since Soviet regime was being built in a new ideology and economic way, every event happening there was in the attention of foreign press. Repression policy of Soviet power from kulakization to cotton affair [Uzbek Deal] was continuously highlighted too. The early articles about Central Asia on the issue were published in English-speaking newspapers in 1924 with short texts. Articles gradually grew in both number and format since then.

As is known, the period between 1937 and 1938 was the peak of Soviet mass repression. This is the reason why the number of articles increased sharply in the UK and the US newspapers. One of the key points of high interest to the issue is connected with calling British Embassy staff in judicial processes as witnesses and their participation in 1938. A trial on former 21 high status statesmen and accusing some of them such as Bukharin, F. Khodjaev, Rykov, Akmal Ikramov to collaborate with British power on the 1920s in order to build a buffer state in Turkestan with the help of British support was one of the highest accusations and the reason to make the British embassy staff come to the trial.

The presentation at the CESS conference highlights British-Soviet relations in the 1920s, the participation of the British embassy staff at the court, the predictions of judgement after their provided evidences that might have happened.

Paper abstract:

The article analyses and compares how Germany and Russia create and implement public diplomacy initiatives towards third countries through a case study on Kyrgyzstan. In particular, it focuses on German and Russian state-sponsored programs targeted to Kyrgyz public and analyses their content – in terms of values and norms spread – as well as their main delivery methods. Unlike its regional neighbours, the Kyrgyz Republic welcomes a variety of international actors and allows them to operate openly on its ground, offering a unique environment for public diplomacy efforts in the region. This comparative study seeks to address a set of broader research questions. First, it is essential to identify and explore how Russia and Germany define public diplomacy, i.e., to track their respective academic and policy narratives on public diplomacy. Second, we seek to map and analyse Russia and Germany’s public diplomacy initiatives in Kyrgyzstan as they might provide important insights into public diplomacy as a foreign policy tool and the respective normative powers of these two countries. Finally, we examine to what extent Russian and German public diplomacy policies are similar and/or different. Methodologically speaking, the article is based on a qualitative comparative analysis with a mix of primary and secondary resources. The article offers interesting insights into the nature and substance of the soft power policies pursued by Germany and Russia that are relevant for the Kyrgyz Republic and beyond. In addition, it sheds new light on the increasingly important role played by transnational public diplomacy actors as norm entrepreneurs engaged in processes of social learning in Eurasia.

Paper abstract:

Since 2002 the United States has been one of the main contributors to democracy promotion in the region according to the amount of Official Development Assistance grants provided to Central Asia (Stockholm Environment Institute, 2022). Despite regular development financial flows and US commitment to promoting democracy, all 5 Central Asian countries are not free according to Freedom in the World Index in 2021. Even Kyrgyzstan, which is considered to be the democratic island of the CA region, lost its position of being partly free from 2020.

This paper attempts to examine the role of US ODA in promoting democracy by responding to the following two questions: To what extent has US democracy promotion in Central Asia been successful, and why? Evaluation of democracy promotion in Central Asia will be undertaken through an analysis of facilitating and impeding factors. Acknowledging the fact that a wide range of factors affects external democracy promotion and its impact is sensitive to changes in international, regional and domestic conditions. Considering that the relevant contextual conditions affect the design, implementation and outcomes of external democracy promotion case study approach will be employed which provides a highly contextual solution to examining external democracy promotion. Kyrgyzstan is chosen for the case study to be the major recipient of US ODA and the only partly free country until 2020. Analytical findings can be used in (re)considering the aid effectiveness approach at the country and regional levels.