Eurasian Connectivity: Interests of Regional and Great Powers

封面

如何引用文章

详细

This article analyses the structure of trading networks in Eurasia and raises important questions on the relationship between these networks and the geopolitical contexts they navigate. Obviously, the geopolitical ambitions of multiple nation-states directly affect the lives and activities of the traders. Besides, nation-states also seek to instrumentally use the trading networks and communities that operate across their territories in order to expand their geopolitical reach and influence. The ultimate goal of these efforts is to dismantle trade barriers among regional players and invigorate intra-regional trade and investments in such a spirit that it would serve their interests. This leaves researchers and analysts wondering whether there is a need for connectivity in Eurasia and how it can be achieved. Which countries are participating in these projects, and what strategies have they adopted? In this article, the author answers the above questions with the help of the relevant maps reflecting the geopolitical interests of major powers and trade statistical reports. The author analyses the institutional arrangements and frameworks created by regional and great powers of Eurasia with special focus on the ambitions of Russia, the European Union, China, Central Asian states, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and India. Neighboring states may take up an interest in developing overland and maritime trade routes. However, to unlock the potential of regional economic cooperation there are conditions to fulfill, such as favorable economic context and political circumstances or the decision by the governments striving to unlock the potential of their economies through cooperation with the neighbors. Naturally, the Eurasian space has room for most players to participate rather than be self-sufficient, with all of them standing to benefit from increased connectivity. Thus, this article offers a broad note on connectivity issues in Eurasia, which denotes physical and non-physical linkages between continental geographies, polities, economies, and populations. Despite the potential benefits of securing a higher level of connectivity in Eurasia, related initiatives have become a competitive factor. Eurasian powers, both great and regional, have made no secret of their goals to reshape regional and continental integration in accordance with their interests.

作者简介

Shoaib Khan

ALFAAZ Education and Cultural Society; University of Mumbai

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: shoaibk_92in@yahoo.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5558-4854

PhD, President, ALFAAZ Education and Cultural Society, Mumbai; Visiting Faculty, Centre for Central Eurasian Studies, University of Mumbai

Mumbai, India

参考

  1. Arase, D. (2015). China’s two silk roads initiative: What it means for Southeast Asia. Southeast Asian Affairs, (2015), 25-45.
  2. Atlı, A. (2018). Turkey as a Eurasian transport hub: Prospects for inter-regional partnership. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 23(2), 117-134.
  3. Bossuyt, F., & Bolgova, I. (2020). Connecting Eurasia: Is cooperation between Russia, China, and the EU in Central Asia possible? In M. Lagutina (Ed.), Regional integration and future cooperation initiatives in the Eurasian Economic Union (pp. 234-250). Hershey: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-1950-9.ch013
  4. Chan, M. H. T. (2018). The Belt and Road Initiative - the New Silk Road: A research agenda. Journal of Contemporary East Asia Studies, 7(2), 104-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/24761028.2019.1580407
  5. Diesen, G. (2021). Europe as the Western Peninsula of Greater Eurasia: Geoeconomic regions in a multipolar world. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
  6. Diesen, G. (Ed.). (2017). Russia’s geoeconomic strategy for a Greater Eurasia. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315212227
  7. Erixon, F., & Srinivasan, K. (Eds.). (2015). Europe in Emerging Asia: Opportunities and obstacles in political and economic encounters. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
  8. Erşen, E., & Köstem, S. (Eds.). (2019). Turkey’s pivot to Eurasia: Geopolitics and foreign policy in a changing world order. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429023064
  9. Fawn, R. (2021). ‘Not here for geopolitical interests or games’: The EU’s 2019 strategy and the regional and inter-regional competition for Central Asia. Central Asian Survey, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2021.1951662
  10. Gvosdev, N. K., & Marsh, C. (2014). Russian foreign policy: Interests, vectors, and sectors. Thousand Oaks: CQ Press. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335391
  11. Korybko, A., & Morozov, V. M. (2020). Pakistan’s role in Russia’s Greater Eurasian partnership. Polis. Political Studies, (3), 9-22. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.03.02
  12. Laruelle, M. (2018). Introduction. China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Quo vadis? In M. Laruelle (Ed.), China’s Belt and Road Initiative and its impact in Central Asia (pp. x-xii). Washington, DC: The George Washington University.
  13. Lewis, M. W., & Wigen, K. (1997). The myth of continents: A critique of metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  14. Libman, A., & Vinokurov, E. (2021). One Eurasia or many? Regional interconnections and connectivity projects on the Eurasian continent. Washington, D.C.: George Washington University.
  15. Maçães, B. (2018). The dawn of Eurasia: On the trail of the new world order. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  16. Mahmood, T. (1996). Pakistan and Central Asia. Eurasian Studies, 3(4), 79-92.
  17. Marsden, M. (2021). Inter-Asian corridor of connectivity (1): The Eurasian world - China, Russia, Ukraine and Western Europe. In M. Marsden (Ed.), Beyond the Silk roads (pp. 56-85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/9781108974387.004
  18. Pomfret, R. (2021). The Eurasian landbridge: Implications of linking East Asia and Europe by rail. Research in Globalization, 3, 100046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2021.100046
  19. Purushothaman, U., & Unnikrishnan, N. (2019). A tale of many roads: India’s approach to connectivity projects in Eurasia. India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, 75(1), 69-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974928418821488
  20. Sahakyan, M. D., & Gärtner, H. (Eds.). (2021). China and Eurasia: Rethinking cooperation and contradictions in the era of changing world order. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003109259
  21. Talbot, V. (Ed.). (2018). Turkey: Towards a Eurasian shift? Milan: Ledizioni LediPublishing.
  22. Trenin, D. (2009). Russia’s spheres of interest, not influence. The Washington Quarterly, 32(4), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01636600903231089
  23. Vasilyeva, N. A., & Lagutina, M. L. (2016). The Russian project of Eurasian integration: Geopolitical prospects. Lanham: Lexington Books.
  24. Vinokurov, E. (2018). Introduction to the Eurasian Economic Union. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92825-8
  25. Walcott, S. M., & Johnson, C. (Eds.). (2013). Eurasian corridors of interconnection: From the South China to the Caspian Sea. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203796443

补充文件

没有额外的文件显示


版权所有 © Khan S., 2022

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##