Send message to Author

Paper abstract:

This paper applies a constructivist approach to the foreign policy analysis (FPA) of Kazakhstan, examining it as an emerging middle power. It attempts to thereby elucidate the role of middle powers in present-day international relations (IR) in the context of the ongoing debate on whether they tend to be drivers for change towards multipolarity or stabilizers of the existing system due to their preference for a greater degree of normativity in the IR anarchical environment. Furthermore, the natural inclination of these actors in favor of enhanced regionalism does not preclude, but rather complements their evolution towards becoming pillars of international community since the Kantian IR system best serves their national interests.

Kazakhstan has a long record of advancing constructive international initiatives, trying to serve as a bridge between East and West. The list of examples comprises activities in favor of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, facilitating international negotiations on Iran and on Syria, the creation of inter-government organizations (e.g. the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia), and associations of non-government actors (the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions), etc. This policy has resiliently persisted, despite the war in Ukraine, multiple trade and financial sanctions, and unprecedented tensions among the major global powers. Under these challenging circumstances Kazakhstan initiated the Astana International Forum, a new international conference of global middle powers, intended as means to amplify their voices and to propose solutions to issues ranging from foreign policy, security and sustainability to energy, climate change and the global economic downturn.

To compensate for the lack of transparency of the FP decision-making process in countries like Kazakhstan, the paper uses constructivist indicators, suggested by Walter Carlsnaes, and further developed by Christopher Hill and others, focusing on foreign policy actions, and on their three phases: intentional, pre-depositional, and reaction of the environment. The supporting data comes from open sources, including but not limited to publications by the Central Asia Barometer Survey.

The paper outlines the similarities and differences between previous foreign policy acts of Kazakhstan and its latest initiative and provides an assessment of latter’s impact. The conclusions may benefit practitioners in the field and IR scholars alike.