Suchergebnisse

In the run of two decades since becoming the independent state, Uzbekistan has manifested sharp turns in its foreign policy by changing geopolitical partners, entering and leaving various international organizations and featured diplomacy, which was difficult to accommodate within any comprehensive strategic framework. This added to the unpredictability of the Uzbek foreign policy which in turn has been causing notable tensions in the Central Asia region, which sometimes were transferred to wider international contexts. In the ample academic research on the Central Asian politics it is usual to label such a type of foreign policy as multivector. The term itself lacks precise definition and may refer to the different aspects of policy. The dissertation offers the definition of multivectorism, and argues that the foreign policy of Uzbekistan is characterized not by continuous feature of multivectorism but rather by the recursive switching between multivector and alliance relationship modes, including partnerships with the sides of the different geopolitical orientation. The argument is built by exploration of the preconditions for the multivector foreign policy, stemming from the internal and external contexts of Uzbekistan and by undertaking the analysis of Uzbekistan foreign policy actions in the period between 1991-2011. Methodologically, the whole analytical effort exploits the strategic-relationship model and attempts to reveal the links between the contextual factors and the foreign policy activities. The dissertation claims that the overarching objective of Uzbekistan's foreign policy was the search for the external security guarantees, and the bias towards multivectorism is explained by the reluctance of the great powers to offer such guarantees.

In the run of two decades since becoming the independent state, Uzbekistan has manifested sharp turns in its foreign policy by changing geopolitical partners, entering and leaving various international organizations and featured diplomacy, which was difficult to accommodate within any comprehensive strategic framework. This added to the unpredictability of the Uzbek foreign policy which in turn has been causing notable tensions in the Central Asia region, which sometimes were transferred to wider international contexts. In the ample academic research on the Central Asian politics it is usual to label such a type of foreign policy as multivector. The term itself lacks precise definition and may refer to the different aspects of policy. The dissertation offers the definition of multivectorism, and argues that the foreign policy of Uzbekistan is characterized not by continuous feature of multivectorism but rather by the recursive switching between multivector and alliance relationship modes, including partnerships with the sides of the different geopolitical orientation. The argument is built by exploration of the preconditions for the multivector foreign policy, stemming from the internal and external contexts of Uzbekistan and by undertaking the analysis of Uzbekistan foreign policy actions in the period between 1991-2011. Methodologically, the whole analytical effort exploits the strategic-relationship model and attempts to reveal the links between the contextual factors and the foreign policy activities. The dissertation claims that the overarching objective of Uzbekistan's foreign policy was the search for the external security guarantees, and the bias towards multivectorism is explained by the reluctance of the great powers to offer such guarantees.

In the run of two decades since becoming the independent state, Uzbekistan has manifested sharp turns in its foreign policy by changing geopolitical partners, entering and leaving various international organizations and featured diplomacy, which was difficult to accommodate within any comprehensive strategic framework. This added to the unpredictability of the Uzbek foreign policy which in turn has been causing notable tensions in the Central Asia region, which sometimes were transferred to wider international contexts. In the ample academic research on the Central Asian politics it is usual to label such a type of foreign policy as multivector. The term itself lacks precise definition and may refer to the different aspects of policy. The dissertation offers the definition of multivectorism, and argues that the foreign policy of Uzbekistan is characterized not by continuous feature of multivectorism but rather by the recursive switching between multivector and alliance relationship modes, including partnerships with the sides of the different geopolitical orientation. The argument is built by exploration of the preconditions for the multivector foreign policy, stemming from the internal and external contexts of Uzbekistan and by undertaking the analysis of Uzbekistan foreign policy actions in the period between 1991-2011. Methodologically, the whole analytical effort exploits the strategic-relationship model and attempts to reveal the links between the contextual factors and the foreign policy activities. The dissertation claims that the overarching objective of Uzbekistan's foreign policy was the search for the external security guarantees, and the bias towards multivectorism is explained by the reluctance of the great powers to offer such guarantees.

In the run of two decades since becoming the independent state, Uzbekistan has manifested sharp turns in its foreign policy by changing geopolitical partners, entering and leaving various international organizations and featured diplomacy, which was difficult to accommodate within any comprehensive strategic framework. This added to the unpredictability of the Uzbek foreign policy which in turn has been causing notable tensions in the Central Asia region, which sometimes were transferred to wider international contexts. In the ample academic research on the Central Asian politics it is usual to label such a type of foreign policy as multivector. The term itself lacks precise definition and may refer to the different aspects of policy. The dissertation offers the definition of multivectorism, and argues that the foreign policy of Uzbekistan is characterized not by continuous feature of multivectorism but rather by the recursive switching between multivector and alliance relationship modes, including partnerships with the sides of the different geopolitical orientation. The argument is built by exploration of the preconditions for the multivector foreign policy, stemming from the internal and external contexts of Uzbekistan and by undertaking the analysis of Uzbekistan foreign policy actions in the period between 1991-2011. Methodologically, the whole analytical effort exploits the strategic-relationship model and attempts to reveal the links between the contextual factors and the foreign policy activities. The dissertation claims that the overarching objective of Uzbekistan's foreign policy was the search for the external security guarantees, and the bias towards multivectorism is explained by the reluctance of the great powers to offer such guarantees.

In the run of two decades since becoming the independent state, Uzbekistan has manifested sharp turns in its foreign policy by changing geopolitical partners, entering and leaving various international organizations and featured diplomacy, which was difficult to accommodate within any comprehensive strategic framework. This added to the unpredictability of the Uzbek foreign policy which in turn has been causing notable tensions in the Central Asia region, which sometimes were transferred to wider international contexts. In the ample academic research on the Central Asian politics it is usual to label such a type of foreign policy as multivector. The term itself lacks precise definition and may refer to the different aspects of policy. The dissertation offers the definition of multivectorism, and argues that the foreign policy of Uzbekistan is characterized not by continuous feature of multivectorism but rather by the recursive switching between multivector and alliance relationship modes, including partnerships with the sides of the different geopolitical orientation. The argument is built by exploration of the preconditions for the multivector foreign policy, stemming from the internal and external contexts of Uzbekistan and by undertaking the analysis of Uzbekistan foreign policy actions in the period between 1991-2011. Methodologically, the whole analytical effort exploits the strategic-relationship model and attempts to reveal the links between the contextual factors and the foreign policy activities. The dissertation claims that the overarching objective of Uzbekistan's foreign policy was the search for the external security guarantees, and the bias towards multivectorism is explained by the reluctance of the great powers to offer such guarantees.

In the run of two decades since becoming the independent state, Uzbekistan has manifested sharp turns in its foreign policy by changing geopolitical partners, entering and leaving various international organizations and featured diplomacy, which was difficult to accommodate within any comprehensive strategic framework. This added to the unpredictability of the Uzbek foreign policy which in turn has been causing notable tensions in the Central Asia region, which sometimes were transferred to wider international contexts. In the ample academic research on the Central Asian politics it is usual to label such a type of foreign policy as multivector. The term itself lacks precise definition and may refer to the different aspects of policy. The dissertation offers the definition of multivectorism, and argues that the foreign policy of Uzbekistan is characterized not by continuous feature of multivectorism but rather by the recursive switching between multivector and alliance relationship modes, including partnerships with the sides of the different geopolitical orientation. The argument is built by exploration of the preconditions for the multivector foreign policy, stemming from the internal and external contexts of Uzbekistan and by undertaking the analysis of Uzbekistan foreign policy actions in the period between 1991-2011. Methodologically, the whole analytical effort exploits the strategic-relationship model and attempts to reveal the links between the contextual factors and the foreign policy activities. The dissertation claims that the overarching objective of Uzbekistan's foreign policy was the search for the external security guarantees, and the bias towards multivectorism is explained by the reluctance of the great powers to offer such guarantees.

The article is a response to prof. Alvydas Jokubaitis's views on a relationship between politics and values, laid down in his paper Politics Without Values in one of the issues of Politologija journal. Ainis Razma provides different view on the issue, arguing that values and politics are the parts of a single system, where the former assumes a role of elements, while the latter is a process.The author starts from defining both politics, and values. In his view both are phenomena, not things, therefore cannot exist objectively, i.e. independently from a subject. Consequently, both politics, and values come to existence only due to some external sources of meaning. The relationship between politics and values is being explored within a context of a temporal structure of experience and activity, as it is formulated by Niklas Luhmann. Whereby it is made a conclusion that politics and values are connected not temporarily but logically.Arguing that politics is simply a public endeavour aimed at achieving or implementing certain public goals, A. Razma at the same time insists politics being one of the most fundamental societal processes reflecting on a society as a whole, and thus playing a key role in delineating public and private spaces within a particular society which in turn serves as a precondition of the construction of norms.The author reflects on the professor's A. Jokubaitis interpretations of Hobbes and Rawls writings. Concerning the former, it is stressed that a mechanical approach to the politics, treating it as a "tool", does not deny its relationship with values. This is argued through the notion that "instrument" always presupposes a goal whose definition is in turn inevitably influenced by values. Concerning Rawls, it is argued that an idea of morally neutral justice does not mean amorality. On the contrary, it calls for the search for or a construction of moral principals that are equally acceptable for all members of a society, and then laying them down at the foundation of a common, i.e. political justice.The author concludes that politics through the function of ideology creates, assesses, and manages values. The value may acquire its "political" quality if it appears within the public space, i.e. if a society declared it to be a value. Therefore, "political" does not refer to the nature of value, but to the area of its application. On the other hand, the values that make a common ethics of a particular society are all by definition political. ; Šis straipsnis – tai polemizavimas su profesoriaus daktaro Alvydo Jokubaičio požiūriu į politikos ir vertybių santykį, išdėstytu žurnale "Politologija" spausdintame straipsnyje "Politika be vertybių". Remiantis A. Jokubaičio nurodytais šaltiniais ir profesoriaus daktaro Algio Mickūno dar neskelbtomis studijomis apie Niklaso Luhmanno teoriją, pateikiamas kitoks požiūris į politiką ir vertybes. Straipsnio autoriaus nuomone, tiek politika, tiek vertybės nėra daiktai, galintys egzistuoti objektyviai. Tai – fenomenai, visada turintys išorinius egzistencijos ir prasmės šaltinius. Vertybės ir politika, kaip elementai ir procesas, yra sistemiškai tarpusavyje susijusios. Analitiniais tikslais sistemos dalis galima atskirti, tačiau darydami analizės išvadas neišvengiamai turėsime grįžti prie santykių sistemiškumo. Politika, kaip vertybinis procesas, be vertybių neįmanoma. Lygiai taip pat visos tam tikroje visuomenėje pripažįstamos vertybės tokios tampa tik per politiką. Todėl politika visada yra vertybinė, o visuomeninės vertybės – visada politinės.

The article is a response to prof. Alvydas Jokubaitis's views on a relationship between politics and values, laid down in his paper Politics Without Values in one of the issues of Politologija journal. Ainis Razma provides different view on the issue, arguing that values and politics are the parts of a single system, where the former assumes a role of elements, while the latter is a process.The author starts from defining both politics, and values. In his view both are phenomena, not things, therefore cannot exist objectively, i.e. independently from a subject. Consequently, both politics, and values come to existence only due to some external sources of meaning. The relationship between politics and values is being explored within a context of a temporal structure of experience and activity, as it is formulated by Niklas Luhmann. Whereby it is made a conclusion that politics and values are connected not temporarily but logically.Arguing that politics is simply a public endeavour aimed at achieving or implementing certain public goals, A. Razma at the same time insists politics being one of the most fundamental societal processes reflecting on a society as a whole, and thus playing a key role in delineating public and private spaces within a particular society which in turn serves as a precondition of the construction of norms.The author reflects on the professor's A. Jokubaitis interpretations of Hobbes and Rawls writings. Concerning the former, it is stressed that a mechanical approach to the politics, treating it as a "tool", does not deny its relationship with values. This is argued through the notion that "instrument" always presupposes a goal whose definition is in turn inevitably influenced by values. Concerning Rawls, it is argued that an idea of morally neutral justice does not mean amorality. On the contrary, it calls for the search for or a construction of moral principals that are equally acceptable for all members of a society, and then laying them down at the foundation of a common, i.e. political justice.The author concludes that politics through the function of ideology creates, assesses, and manages values. The value may acquire its "political" quality if it appears within the public space, i.e. if a society declared it to be a value. Therefore, "political" does not refer to the nature of value, but to the area of its application. On the other hand, the values that make a common ethics of a particular society are all by definition political.

Shortly following the bloodshed in Andizhan in May, 2005, the EU introduced sanctions to Uzbekistan. This diplomatic action marked an end of friendly partner relations between the parties and had severe geopolitical consequences for the West. During the sanctions period, human rights situation in Uzbekistan has not improved, neither any significant progress of democratic political reform was observable. Nevertheless, due to the pressing geopolitical interests and economic considerations, in November, 2009 the EU has dropped sanctions to Uzbekistan. This four year period of partial disengagement of the EU from active policy in Uzbekistan saw serious and rapid deterioration of European and American geopolitical influence in Central Asia. This round-about of European diplomacy in Uzbekistan was caused by the attempts of the EU to carry out so called moral foreign policy based on values of Western liberal democracy. The autohor argues that such policy only can be effective within the confines of a single civilization. Due to the different interpretations of the meanings of certain values among various civilizations, an attempt to introduce someone's own interpretation as the only true one, turns value-based diplomacy into a variation of power policy. This happens due to the fact that in the game where one interpretation should be acknowledged to be the correct one, the power is a single factor behind such an acknowledgement. The EU and the West in general, today is in a position to announce globaly the superiority of their values. However, in the long run this ability may dramatically decrease, if the EU will continue to ignore the nature of international relations and will futher sacrifice it's geopolitical interests and influence to the value principles, as in the case with Uzbekistan.

Shortly following the bloodshed in Andizhan in May, 2005, the EU introduced sanctions to Uzbekistan. This diplomatic action marked an end of friendly partner relations between the parties and had severe geopolitical consequences for the West. During the sanctions period, human rights situation in Uzbekistan has not improved, neither any significant progress of democratic political reform was observable. Nevertheless, due to the pressing geopolitical interests and economic considerations, in November, 2009 the EU has dropped sanctions to Uzbekistan. This four year period of partial disengagement of the EU from active policy in Uzbekistan saw serious and rapid deterioration of European and American geopolitical influence in Central Asia. This round-about of European diplomacy in Uzbekistan was caused by the attempts of the EU to carry out so called moral foreign policy based on values of Western liberal democracy. The autohor argues that such policy only can be effective within the confines of a single civilization. Due to the different interpretations of the meanings of certain values among various civilizations, an attempt to introduce someone's own interpretation as the only true one, turns value-based diplomacy into a variation of power policy. This happens due to the fact that in the game where one interpretation should be acknowledged to be the correct one, the power is a single factor behind such an acknowledgement. The EU and the West in general, today is in a position to announce globaly the superiority of their values. However, in the long run this ability may dramatically decrease, if the EU will continue to ignore the nature of international relations and will futher sacrifice it's geopolitical interests and influence to the value principles, as in the case with Uzbekistan.

Shortly following the bloodshed in Andizhan in May, 2005, the EU introduced sanctions to Uzbekistan. This diplomatic action marked an end of friendly partner relations between the parties and had severe geopolitical consequences for the West. During the sanctions period, human rights situation in Uzbekistan has not improved, neither any significant progress of democratic political reform was observable. Nevertheless, due to the pressing geopolitical interests and economic considerations, in November, 2009 the EU has dropped sanctions to Uzbekistan. This four year period of partial disengagement of the EU from active policy in Uzbekistan saw serious and rapid deterioration of European and American geopolitical influence in Central Asia. This round-about of European diplomacy in Uzbekistan was caused by the attempts of the EU to carry out so called moral foreign policy based on values of Western liberal democracy. The autohor argues that such policy only can be effective within the confines of a single civilization. Due to the different interpretations of the meanings of certain values among various civilizations, an attempt to introduce someone's own interpretation as the only true one, turns value-based diplomacy into a variation of power policy. This happens due to the fact that in the game where one interpretation should be acknowledged to be the correct one, the power is a single factor behind such an acknowledgement. The EU and the West in general, today is in a position to announce globaly the superiority of their values. However, in the long run this ability may dramatically decrease, if the EU will continue to ignore the nature of international relations and will futher sacrifice it's geopolitical interests and influence to the value principles, as in the case with Uzbekistan.

The paper disputes the thesis of Jokubaitis's article "Politics Without Values," that purely political understanding of things is impossible for there are no purely political values. Therefore no decision could be based on purely political values. Razma argues that values as well as politics are not things but phenomena, which together make up a system where the former make its elements & the latter constitute the process. For analytical purposes the system can be dissembled into component parts, but the conclusions of analysis must refer to the systematic nature of the relationship between the parts. The politics as an axiological process is impossible without values, & any value can only gain acknowledgement through the process of politics. Therefore, the politics is always axiological, & common values of any society are always political. Adapted from the source document.