Search

This paper aims to explore the significant role played by Eurasianism both as a philosophy and as a political project in three Central Asian republics. Debates of political elites and intellectuals in Kazakhstan. Kyrgystan and Uzbekistan over their countries' models of development and policy of regional integration is the focus of this research. This paper tries to clarify the meaning of Eurasianism by comparing it to similar ideologies and ideas such as Asianism. Similarities between Chinese or Japanese Asianism with Russian Euraisianism on the one hand, and the similarities between Korean and Uzbek reactions to these dominant nations' integrationist ideas are highlighted. It is argued that dominant nation Eurasianism (i.e. Russian) is significantly different than the non-dominant nations'case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the historical development of the Eurasianist movement and doctrine will be discussed under two general periods: Classical Eurasianism started with the publication of "Exodus to East" in 1921 and continued with breaks and inner struggles till the first half of 1930's. The Doctrine of Classical Eurasianism is based on the definition of parallel structures of Eurasia or Eurasian mectorazvitie; geographical, economical, political, ethnical, cultural and ethical structures of Eurasia were described by Classical Eurasians by using strong anti-western sentiments. While they were politicising the "East", they actually tried to bind universal perceptions with national/local perspectives. According to Eurasians the main instrument for an intellectual linkage between universal and local worldviews should be regional designations, which have to be dependent on self-recognition and self-defence principles. The main pillars of the Classical Eurasianist School came to the scene after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. They followed their intellectual fathers and used the same anti-western rhetoric for the self-recognition of Eurasia. However, they mainly devote their intellectual efforts to develop a strategy for the self-defence of Eurasia. This imprisoned Neo-Eurasians in a traditional and sometimes regressive rhetoric more than Classical Eurasians. This paper will deal with the continuities and changes between these two periods of the Eurasianist school. Moreover, we will try to understand the political implications if there is any kind of change or discontinuity between Classical and Neo Eurasianist thoughts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]