Mini-Me: Uzbekistan Wants to Join NATO, Conquer Eurasia [We Do Not Make This Stuff Up] — Full Reading [English Below the Line] Makes Clear This Is A Manifesto — From Water to Genocide to Labor to Historical Grievances

02 Diplomacy, 06 Russia, 08 Wild Cards, 09 Justice, 10 Security, 11 Society, 12 Water, Civil Society, Commerce, Cultural Intelligence, Earth Intelligence, Government, IO Deeds of War, IO History, Military, Peace Intelligence
Who?  Mini-Me?
Who? Mini-Me?

Huh?

Uzbekistan Media: We Should Join NATO, Conquer Eurasia

A recent piece in Uzbekistan’s state-sanctioned media has advocated joining NATO and taking over the territory of Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and most of the rest of Eurasia. The piece, published on 12news.uz, was taken down shortly after being published, but was preserved on inoSMI.ru.  [PBI: English translation below the line.]

The piece, at nearly 9,000 words, offers a number of controversial (to put it kindly) claims: that Tajiks are merely Persian-speaking Uzbeks, that Uzbekistan is the successor state to the Mongol Golden Horde, that the agreement between Russia and Kyrgyzstan to develop hydropower plants is invalid because it misspells “Kyrgyzstan,” among many others. Its main thesis, however, is that the “threats of a natural-technical character” — namely proposed hydropower plants in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan — are the gravest security threats facing Uzbekistan, comparable to a nuclear bomb. And the solution is that Uzbekistan should join NATO.

ca water 3The piece is a bit out there, but Uzbek analysts point out that it must have been officially sanctioned. “This site [12news.uz] is not just semi-official, it’s official,” dissident political analyst Tashpulat Yuldashev told uznews.net. “It’s curated by Dilshod Nurullaev, former Security Commission chairman and advisor to the President,” he said. “There is total censorship in Uzbekistan, and such a politically charged article would not have been allowed to be published without permission from the very top.” That assertion was backed up by another Uzbek analyst to The Bug Pit.

Russian readers with a lot of time to waste are encouraged to read the entire 9,000 words (and uznews.net summarizes it in English), but here’s a flavor:

Contemporary Uzbekistan, as a legal successor to the Kokand khanate, has the full right to territorial claims on the entire republic of Kyrgyzstan, not to mention the property claims of all the transboundary waters and the structures built on them, including [hydroelectric dam project] Kamburata-1… In the case that Russia or Kyrgyzstan further act arbitrarily after the government of Uzbekistan presents a note, addressed to Russia and Kyrgyzstan, demanding the immediate cessation of construction of Kambarata-1, the Uzbek side will have the full and justified right to take that object under its control, take it under its jurisdiction with all of the military-political and economic ramifications.

The explanation of how NATO will help all of this is pretty thin, unfortunately.

The threats to the national security of Uzbekistan, including the threats connected with the surplus of labor resources and the limitations of labor migrants to Russia and Kazakhstan, dictates the harsh conditions according to which Uzbekistan must join NATO. It’s necessary to become the avantguard (outpost) of this organization in Central Asia, having a contemporary army, in which could be mobilized that part of our youth, labor migrants in Russia and Kazakhstan… “

As unlikely as NATO membership for Uzbekistan sounds (and is), Karimov has in the past made clear his interest. When the U.S. was first discussing military cooperation with Uzbekistan in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks, President Islam Karimov’s “first requests were for immediate membership in NATO and a bilateral mutual defense treaty with the United States,” wrote (pdf) U.S. Air Force Colonel Michael McCarthy, who worked on Central Asia security cooperation issues at the time. But it goes without saying that making the case for NATO accession by making territorial claims against most of your neighbors is unlikely to win much favor in Brussels.

If this was in fact officially sanctioned by Karimov, it’s hard to know what the purpose is, as it seems designed to offend and alarm pretty much every neighbor Uzbekistan has, not least Russia, while convincing potential partners that it would be an extremely troublesome ally.

Below is a Google Translate rendition of the original Russian at http://www.inosmi.ru/sngbaltia/20130708/210759352.html.

Uzbekistan: NATO membership and territorial claims
(“12.uz”, Uzbekistan)

“Uzbekistan – a country with a great future.”
Islam Karimov

Currently, there are real threats to the national security of Uzbekistan. The first of these threats is military in nature and comes from hostile forces and international terrorist organizations based in the territories of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The reality of the threat of war increases many times in connection with the withdrawal of ISAF troops, and especially the United States, Afghanistan, scheduled for 2014. The threat of even higher rank for the Uzbek National Security than even the threat of war, are threats that are natural and man-made nature and related to the construction of hydraulic structures in the upper reaches of transboundary watercourses located on the territories of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. So the question arises: how can Uzbekistan contemporary challenges and prevent the existing threats to its national security, having in the first place, the military and natural-technogenic character?

1. What is the essence of a military threat to the national security of the Republic of Uzbekistan?

Since U.S. President Barack Obama June 22, 2011 announced the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in the media and abroad often sanctified opinions various experts about what the consequences may be a step of this world power for the Central Asian countries. And, especially for Uzbekistan. If we analyze and summarize such statements of experts, they can be reduced to the following conclusion.

The withdrawal of NATO and, above all, the U.S. troops from Afghanistan, may give rise to threats to the national security of the countries of Central Asia, and, first of all, Uzbekistan, by hostile forces and terrorist organizations located in areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. If a number of these countries hostile forces that threaten the national security of Uzbekistan, include the Taliban”, then a terrorist organization, carrying the same threat may include the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and the Islamic Movement of Turkestan (IMT) [9], who settled on the areas of the same countries.

President of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov on May 26, 2000 in an interview with the newspaper “Kommersant” said: “I ask, give Russia, we do not have to defend themselves The Uzbeks are able to kick back We are today the most powerful army in Central Asia . “Probably why some not so competent, so short-sighted Russian experts even now trying to dispute this assertion of Islam Karimov, flatter that allegedly Army Uzbekistan is not a modern military force capable of spaced his national security in the event of an attack on him by hostile forces are, for example in Afghanistan.

However, if in the armed forces of Uzbekistan and there were some shortcomings in the 90-ies of the last century, they are the beginning of 2000 have been completely eliminated, and his defense is being strengthened. At the same time the country’s leadership takes into account not only the experience of the infamous 90-ies of the last century, when the “Taliban” threatened with invasion of its territory. And Russia, represented by its Chairman of the Government Viktor Chernomyrdin, refused to provide even a very small military aid to the country (then Russia has not allocated even more ammunition wagons for multiple-launch rocket systems “Grad”). But, the real facts of the invasion of terrorist forces (IMU) in the Batken region of Kyrgyzstan in 1999 to pass through the border with Kyrgyzstan and grab the Fergana Valley, and in Surkhandarya region of Uzbekistan in 2000, which in both cases were carried through Tajikistan [12]. That is why the government of Uzbekistan, seeking and finding ways to strengthen its borders and the armed forces, with the cooperation, assistance and support of the U.S. and NATO.

But there is another, more powerful threat, which has a much higher risk than a military threat to national security in Uzbekistan that is natural and manmade. So the next question.

2. What is the natural and man-made threats to the national security of the Republic of Uzbekistan?

ca water 1Giant energy facilities under construction on the upper reaches of transboundary waters (rivers), as the Syr Darya and Amu Darya rivers carry an even higher risk and a threat to national security in Uzbekistan than a military threat, because they are threats that have unavoidable natural and manmade. As accumulated in the reservoirs of these objects giant water resources, being located in areas of high seismic hazard of mountain areas of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, in cases of catastrophic earthquakes can flood vast areas not only in Uzbekistan, but also in other countries of Central Asia, leading to countless deaths. And this should not be allowed even if [mathematical], the probability of such events is negligible value. As in the case of events in such a scenario disastrous Aschhabadskogo and the Tashkent earthquake that occurred in the last century, may be insignificant events. Minor events compared with those consequences that threaten the national security of Uzbekistan as a result of the construction of Kambar-Ata-1 hydropower plant in Kyrgyzstan and Ragun HPP in Tajikistan.

However, the Russian Federation, to which Uzbekistan is in the post-second state – after an ally of Belarus in accordance with the “Agreement on allied relations between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Uzbekistan”, knowing his official point of view to the construction of the above-mentioned power plants, allowed herself to speak against Uzbekistan. For the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, and although not concluded any agreement on the construction of hydropower Ragun. But not only with Kyrgyzstan signed an “Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic on the construction and operation of Kambarata-1” from September 20, 2012, but ratified it May 7, 2013. However, this step does not correspond to the Russian Federation not only international law, but also its own Constitution and other applicable laws of this country. So the questions arise: Are the members of the Government and the State Duma of the Russian Federation international law and its own legislation on transboundary waters, as well as the fact that the “Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes”, adopted in Helsinki on 17 March 1992, entered into More power for Russia October 6, 1996? If known, then:

3. Why is the government and the State Duma of the Russian Federation introduced by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s confusing the issue of the construction and operation of Kambarata-1?

ca water 2Perhaps this issue has played a role lobby JSC “INTER RAO UES” chase the super profit from the project construction and operation of Kambarata-1 and is capable to exert strong pressure on the government and the State Duma of the Russian Federation. For examining the documents submitted by the Government of the Russian Federation to the State Duma of the Russian Federation is not difficult to discover that the weight of the paper up to the text of the “Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic on the construction and operation of Kambarata-1”, prepared by the Russian side. Because the weight of law № 253991-6, submitted to the State Duma of the Russian Federation Government of the Russian Federation on the basis of its judgment of 6 April 2013 number 299, has a gross grammatical and other errors that are unique only to the Russian side. But these blatant grammatical and other errors worthy of attention because they exclude entirely the Federal Law of the Russian Federation on May 7, 2013 № 71-F3 “On ratification of the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic on the construction and operation of Kambarata 1 “AUTHORITY. (!)

For this Federal Law of the Russian Federation on May 7, 2013 71F3, is not legitimate and has no legal effect because in the world there is no such country or state as the Kyrgyz Republic. And, moreover, the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic. But the world is and we can find a state whose name is somewhat similar to the above title. But it is, as enshrined in its Constitution, has a different name the Kyrgyz Republic and Kyrgyzstan.

Such an approach to the preparation of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation demonstrates not only ignorance and incompetence of the authors of his project, but also the fact, as mentioned above. Namely – the document has been prepared by the Russian side under pressure unfair and perhaps even deeply corrupt lobby JSC “INTER RAO UES”. A Kyrgyz side, enjoying the result of the state visit of President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Kyrgyzstan, signed the “Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic on the construction and operation of Kambarata-1″, without any comment, violating the constitution of their country, on behalf of the Government of the Kyrgyz non-existent Republic. For in the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic a regulation on the equivalence of the Kyrgyz Republic and the Kyrgyz Republic, no. A paragraph or paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Constitution of this country has a note: “The Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyzstan).”

For the name of the republic and its people after it gained independence, the state was changed because the word, term or self-name Kyrgyz”, which referred to the titular nation of the republic in the Russian pronunciation and writing in Russian as Kyrgyz” in Uzbek, and in the Kyrgyz language, too, corresponds to an obscene word. Obscene word translated into Russian as “vsun” (in anything), in the sense of obscene words “fuck.” Since the first letter in the self-titular nation and most of the country, as their official language, and the Uzbek language begins with the Latin alphabet, adopted in Uzbekistan and the corresponding lower case letter «q» and a capital letter «Q».

Of course the Federal Law of the Russian Federation on May 7, 2013 71-F3 [18] can be corrected by re-signing or signing a new text of the Agreement the “Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic on the construction and operation of Kambarata-1.” After that, revising it based on the new text of the bill, re-introduced by the State Duma of the Russian Government, and the inclusion in the title and text of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation dated May 7, 2013 71F3, the amendments and changes. And then, we get his new endorsement of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the signature of the President of the Russian Federation, that is, by the ratification of the new Agreement.

But Prime Minister Mr. D. Medvedev, whose name be made to the State Duma a draft law and the deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, taking the bill in due course, have to remember that they have made such a stupid mistake not without reason! Because this bill does not match any paragraph 4 of Article 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation [20] and neither the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of July 15, 1995 № 101-FZ “On International Treaties of the Russian Federation.” Therefore, they should consider: whether the cost, to re-enter into such an illegal agreement with Kyrgyzstan? And even more so when it does not meet even the international law to which Russia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan joined in a long time, while Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, is not affiliated with purpose. Do not join the international “Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes”, specifically, thinking that in this way they will be able to achieve their goals, luring to their side of the Russian Federation, and if she refuses, then China or Iran [25-28] .

However, in accordance with international law, codified in the Vienna Convention [22], it was Russia and not only can not build the Rogun HPP in Tajikistan but Kambarata-1 in Kyrgyzstan, without the consent of, the states located in the lower reaches of transboundary waters, in which the upper and built these water networks, and above all Uzbekistan. And more so, when the construction of such facilities are a potential threat to its national security. Safety or property of any kind, or an empty property in Uzbekistan, where people do not live, and the safety of the source of his government SAFETY Uzbek people. And it is not imaginary but real threat. Threat, higher than a military threat to the national security of Uzbekistan by hostile forces and terrorist organizations based in the territories of such countries as Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And if Russia does not understand the fact that the adoption of its own side of the Federal Law “On Ratification of the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic on the construction and operation of Kambarata-1” provides a basis to transfer her to Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, among his enemies. Foes facing rank much higher than the hostile forces, and international terrorist organizations that live in areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. In addition, re-breaking international law on transboundary waters, as well as, not taking into account the fact that the construction of such facilities on rivers poses a real threat to the national security of Uzbekistan, re-issue the agreement with Kyrgyzstan on the construction of Kambar-Ata-1 hydropower plant and legislation its ratification. Or does it agree with Kyrgyzstan that remark such an expert, like me, is not an official Uzbek, not worth it to pay attention to it, then the question of the need for the implementation of its recommendations, short content, which are displayed in the title of this article, I to dwell for a moment. For they will deal with the next question. What measures should be taken by the Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan in this course of events

But here I want to mention the fact that the relevant law of the Kyrgyz Republic on the ratification of the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic on the construction and operation of Kambarata-1″, the draft of which was submitted to the Jogorku Kenesh (Parliament) of the Kyrgyz Republic and the Minister of Energy industry KR Avtandil Kalmambetovym December 29, 2012, and passed by the legislature this CD February 21 and signed by the President Atambaev February 25, 2013, are not legally binding, on the same basis as discussed above with respect to the Federal Law of the Russian Federation on the issue of May 7, 2013 71-F3.

4. What other real threat to national security comes Uzbekistan from Kyrgyzstan?

I wrote about it earlier in my articles, I want to draw your attention to the fact that due to another serious threat to the national security of Uzbekistan. This threat is related to inter-ethnic conflict between ethnic Kyrgyz and Uzbeks south of Kyrgyzstan, who are citizens of that country the Kyrgyz Republic, which, if once again, it can develop into a true interstate military conflict. In a military conflict between Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. For the presence of international ethnic conflict in the south of Kyrgyzstan, in 1990, claimed the lives of 1,200 people on both sides, a similar conflict in June and July 2010, that is, after the acquisition of its independence, Kyrgyzstan, has already claimed the lives of about 2,500 people. But only the lives of people exclusively of ethnic Uzbeks.

Also, you should pay serious attention to is the fact that the international media with reference to “France Press” June 18, 2010 spread a message stating that, according to the UN, in the unrest in the south of Kyrgyzstan suffered about 1,000,000 (one million) people. Of these, about 300,000 (three hundred thousand) as refugees crossed into Uzbekistan, and more than 700,000 (seven hundred thousand) people were forced to move within the country. As for the refugees, on the territory of Uzbekistan, as was reported by official agencies of the government, have found temporary shelter about 100,000 (one hundred thousand) ethnic Uzbeks, which the Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan has provided tents for accommodation, medical care, water, three meals a day and others necessary.

It should be emphasized that the Organization of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), when it was headed by the Russian Federation, on behalf of then its President Dmitry Medvedev, hiding behind the fact that initially this military-political bloc was created to protect the CSTO participating countries against external aggression (?), simply refused to protect ethnic Uzbeks from ethnic cleansing or genocide. Genocide, ethnic Uzbeks, carried out by the Kyrgyz people with the connivance of the Provisional Government and the security forces of Kyrgyzstan. So given immunity (immunity from prosecution) Medvedev as the then President of the Russian Federation, for such behavior CSTO to be exempted from office and criminal charges for negligence, manifested in the course of these events, even if the Secretary General of the Organization Nikolai Bordyuzha and apologize to ethnic Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan. However, even this was not done.

In this case, it would be appropriate to hear the answer of the then President and current Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev to the following questions:

Why do you, dear Dmitry Anatolyevich, protection of the population of South Ossetia from Georgian armed attack, in almost the same situation, did not protect ethnic Uzbeks, Kyrgyz people from genocide, despite the fact that you are then led Collective Security Treaty Organization, on behalf of the Russian Federation? And that would make the Russian Federation, if, in any CIS country committed genocide of ethnic Russian, killing about 2,500 of them are very cynical way: by killing them, their old men, women and children, and setting fire to their homes and other property and turning to more than 300,000 refugees from them?

And yet, I would like to emphasize that I, at the time, analyzing the events in southern Kyrgyzstan in his article, “Kyrgyzstan: the people it’s not a crowd, consisting of criminals “, offered the following.

First of all, this issue should be guided by the norms of the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment.”

Second, in order to determine not only the performers, but also real perpetrators of the carnage in the south of Kyrgyzstan, ie leaders and the leaders of crowds of ethnic Kyrgyz who carried out the genocide of ethnic Uzbeks and remove unwarranted suspicion of organizing the genocide, with countries such as Tajikistan, Russia and the U.S., it is urgent to establish on the basis of resolutions of the General Assembly or the Security Council of the UN, such special units or agencies as:

However, I then thought that it would be fair and appropriate, if Kyrgyzstan itself take the initiative in this matter by contacting the United Nations to establish the authorities referred to in section 6 “of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishmentfor independent international investigation into the genocide of ethnic Uzbeks in their territory and adoption of appropriate measures based on the results of such an investigation. However, these are my suggestions then left without attention from Kyrgyzstan. Moreover Kyrgyz parliament almost that in a year, as this was reported by the media of his June 22, 2011 [32], has decided to complete absence of the presence of such ethnic cleansing as genocide during the bloody events in southern Kyrgyzstan in June-July 2010. Therefore, I believe that these proposals should be implemented, even on the basis of a formal declaration of Uzbekistan to the United Nations.

So that all that is associated with Kyrgyzstan, Russia and the CSTO in the issues regarding the ethnic conflict between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks, could not escape the attention of the government of Uzbekistan. I think not only because of its military doctrine of Uzbekistan and other laws prohibit participate in military blocs, but also because of the fact that the CSTO has discredited itself in the issue of the ethnic conflict in the south of Kyrgyzstan, he said, quite rightly, and suspended its membership in this military-political organization with the December 19, 2012.

But there is another threat to the national security of Uzbekistan, which is connected not only with these, like, close the CIS countries as Russia and Kazakhstan, but also the internal problems of the country. So the question arises: what is this threat?

5. Limitation of labor migration from Uzbekistan to Russia and Kazakhstan – is also one of the threats to the national security of Uzbekistan

For the threat posed by limited labor migration from Uzbekistan to Russia and Kazakhstan, is associated with an excess of labor in Uzbekistan, is his legacy inherited from the defunct Soviet Union, which, in turn, related to the errors of the empire in population policy and Soviet economic planning. So, if the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan inherited from the Soviet Union vast areas of natural and other resources at a much smaller number of people per square kilometer territory, Uzbekistan, but an old, long worn-out equipment and production technology, backward Agrarian economy and its water problems – got into legacy that’s such a critical problem. The acute problem that is associated with an excess of labor, in which the decision of the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan are obliged to provide their full assistance to Uzbekistan because of the unfair distribution of the territory of the USSR and its property.

But I have problems with excess labor in Uzbekistan analyzed in the first and second parts of his article “Uzbekistan: challenges, threats, challenges and solutions.” And, given the fact that the issues contained in them, still remain valid, there will not be repeated again, recommending to readers who are interested in this issue, read my articles on these addresses given in the references.

However, here I want to emphasize only the fact that the issues of excess labor in Uzbekistan through their labor migration to Russia and Kazakhstan, apparently trying to prevent the hostile attitude of government officials in these countries, despite the fact that the successful development of these countries need massive the number of labor resources. And they are the immense territory, that there would fit the population, estimated in several billions of people and live normally, with the skillful creation for their respective economies by competent professionals, politicians and government officials in these countries.

Among the government agencies that hinder labor migration from Uzbekistan (export commodity – labor force) in Russia, despite the relevant parties to the Agreement in the first place should include, for example, the very Federal Migration Service of the Russian Federation. For this service in their analysis of the status of labor migrants from Uzbekistan, is based on statistical data on criminal offenses that take place throughout the Russian Federation and Moscow, not in accordance with reality. As well as the views of the hostile population of this country with respect to labor migrants from Uzbekistan and thinking as extreme nationalists, perhaps, as well as by the staff of the Migration Service of the Russian Federation.

Such a bias towards labor migrants from Uzbekistan, and indeed from Central Asia, formed in Russia and Kazakhstan, the officials of state bodies in these countries arises because they have a clue as to what among the indigenous population the main part of the territories they occupy Now, apply and Uzbeks – not at all. It is for this reason that this fact many times I sanctified and argued in his articles published in the popular online editions of the Russian Federation [26-29, 35-38], so that such a circumstance soon reached the consciousness of government officials in these countries, in order to they took all sorts of obstacles in front of labor migrants from Uzbekistan. And their media – have ceased to carry all this nonsense about our migrant workers, calling them the German word migrant worker, adding that word distorted and insulting meaning.

Now move on to the consecration of the main issue.

6. How can you prevent the existing threats to the national security of Uzbekistan, worsening over time?

The main thesis. Prevent hanging over Uzbekistan military threats, threats of natural and man-made threats related to international conflicts and labor surplus (mentioned above), is possible only through the entry of Uzbekistan into the ranks of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Why is it necessary to change the Military Doctrine of the Republic of Uzbekistan and the relevant laws and to withdraw from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), by withdrawing its signature from the Alma-Ata Declaration, adopted December 21, 1991, with the simultaneous announcement of the declaration of illegal transaction. And most important of Uzbekistan to prevent these threats, in any case, must produce the majority of the CIS countries, and in the first place: the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, legitimate territorial and other claims, as the successor of the Uzbek state, which knows the story since 1312, and the USSR, based on international law. A NATO allow Uzbekistan, with the help and support of this particular military-political bloc, not only to prevent overhanging the military and other threats, and to achieve their territorial and other claims to these and other countries.

So what evidence the validity of the thesis will start by answering the following question.

6.1. How does the political map of the world, a new independent state called the Russian Federation and whether its status as a successor” and successor” of the USSR, legal?

It seems to be the question, raised in the heading of this section in the article, another reader, at first glance, it may seem too trivial and irrelevant. However, as very rightly says Dmitry Yuriev in an article published in a REGNUM in 2006:

“The myth of Russia as” the only successor “of the USSR – the result of a cynical geopolitical cheating, attempt a global” set “, which managed to pull in part of the world community owes so much voluntary agreement on Russia is to take on the tremendous amount of work to minimize the catastrophic effects the collapse of the Soviet Union. Agreement, which was the first gesture of good will and a response to the express request of that “world community.” Surprisingly, the question of “Succession of the USSR” was spoofed in the mass consciousness, and in the ratings and comments of experts. There is a strong opinion that the “assignee” of the USSR Russia called the text “Belovezhskaya agreements.” This is not the case.

Formal legal basis demise of the Soviet Union became three documents – the agreement on the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States (actually “Belovezhskaya Agreement”), signed by Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, December 8, 1991, in which three of the republic “as the founding states of the USSR, Union Treaty signed in 1922, “stated that” the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality ceases to exist “, and a protocol to this agreement and the declaration signed in Almaty on December 21, 1991, in accordance with which the CIS includes 11 “union republics” that have become independent states. Later they were joined by twelve States – Georgia – and the Baltic republics to participate in the post-Soviet integration processes refused.

In these documents, a word about the “succession of Russia” no. The official position of the countries participating in the agreement on the establishment of the CIS on the special role of Russia was first formulated in Alma-Ata, on the day of signing the declaration, the text of “decisions of the Council of CIS Heads of State” in the following terms: “The participating States of the Commonwealth, citing Article 12 of the Treaty establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States, based on the intent of each State to fulfill obligations under the UN Charter and participate in the work of the organization as a full member, given that the original members of the United Republic of Belarus, the Soviet Union and Ukraine, expressing satisfaction that the Republic Belarus and Ukraine continue to participate in the UN as a sovereign independent states, determined to contribute to the strengthening of international peace and security on the basis of the UN Charter in the interest of their people and the international community, have decided: 1. State of the Commonwealth support Russia in the fact that it continued the membership of the Soviet Union in the UN, including permanent membership in the Security Council and other international organizations. 2. The Republic of Belarus, the Russian Federation, Ukraine will have to other states of the Commonwealth of support in addressing their full membership in the UN and other international organizations. ” Thus, the idea was put forward clear “exchange”: the former Soviet republics recognize the Russian state, the USSR continuing membership in the United Nations, and in return receive support in recognizing them as full subjects of international law.

Immediately following the publication of the documents the Almaty meeting fact the demise of the Soviet Union, first enunciated in the “Belovezhskaya agreement”, triggered a wave of official recognition from all the world’s major countries. It was at this point in the international practice of the Russian language was included as a “legal successor” (not the legal successor) of the USSR in the framework of the established in 1945, the world order, in which the Soviet Union was one of the fundamental players (permanent member of the UN Security Council), a simple elimination of which could undermine or destroy the entire structure.

This formulation was more ideological than legal innovation, launched with a single purpose – to minimize the consequences of the collapse of the international superpower, to simplify the process of saving capacity of the fundamental international treaties exclude the possibility of armed conflict, challenging the legitimacy of a virtual elimination of the internationally recognized geopolitical phenomenon called the Soviet Union. The nomination and the actual legitimacy of this language – and this is evident from the content of documents of that time – were the result not issued an explicit consensus, Russia, the UN and the former Soviet republics, and the initiator of the wording of the state was above all – “Western” partners of the USSR (especially proactive support to the idea Russian “prodolzhatelstva” – for obvious reasons – took the “Western” Japan), keenly interested in how to avoid the “logic of a clean slate” (in what initially tried to push some short-sighted representatives of the world of diplomacy.)

Implementation of consensus as follows. December 24, 1991 was sent to the official message of the President of the Russian Federation to the UN Secretary-General, in which, with reference to the aforementioned decision of the Council of CIS Heads of State, reported on continued membership of the USSR in the OOH of the Russian Federation. The Secretary-General sent a text message to all members of the UN, referring to the opinion of the legal department of the UN Secretariat, proposed to assume that it is notifying the appeal, stating the reality, and does not require formal approval by the UN. About accord with the approach reported by all the permanent members of the Security Council and other leading countries. Thus, from December 24, 1991 the Russian Federation continued membership of the USSR in the UN, including its membership in the Security Council.

January 13, 1992 there was an official letter to the Russian Foreign Ministry, “On the implementation of the Russian Federation of its obligations under international treaties signed by the USSR” in the name of heads of diplomatic missions accredited in Moscow, stating: “The Russian Federation continues to exercise the rights and fulfill the obligations arising out of international agreements concluded by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Accordingly, the Government of the Russian Federation will be run in place of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic as depositary under the relevant multilateral treaties. In this regard, the Ministry asks consider the Russian Federation as a Party to all international treaties in place of the USSR. ” Thus delineated and is another important component of the “prodolzhatelstva” – an economic one. Russia actually “bought” maintain its position at the UN and the property of the USSR abroad (embassies, etc.) to recognize and take on the obligations of foreign debts of the Union.

The last major component of the “prodolzhatelstva” and the succession has become a body of international agreements on nuclear safety issues – issues that have troubled the West the most. These issues affected the four post-Soviet states – Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan – on whose territory was located nuclear weapons of the Soviet armed forces. And the West, presented by the United States, has done everything possible, as soon as possible transfer the entire nuclear arsenal of the former Union “in one hand” – in the hands of Russia – and at the same time to prevent the expansion of the “nuclear club.”

Next Dmitry Yuriev in his article [39], writes that: In the end, it is the” Lisbon Protocol “(officially Protocol to the Treaty between the USSR and the USA on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of July 31, 1991), which was signed by the United States , Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, May 23, 1992, uses the term “successor of the USSR,” and that’s the context in which: “The Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, as successor States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in connection with agreed to take on the obligations of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the Treaty. “

A Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On State Policy of the Russian Federation in respect of compatriots abroad,” from May 24, 1999 № 99-FZ, signed by more B.Eltsinym, after making his repeated amendments and changes, states that:

“This federal law is based on the fact that the Russian Federation – is the successor and pravoprodolzhatel the Russian state and the Russian republic of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).”

However, analyzing the circumstances set out in Article Dmitry Yuriev and material published on the Internet, as well as international law, and many other publications on this topic, it is easy to come to the following conclusion.

Statement by the Russian Federation that it “has a successor and pravoprodolzhatel the Russian state and the Russian republic of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)” – is, to put it mildly, skillfully Attached to the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of 24 May 1999 № 99-FZ [40] fraud. Or falsification of history, carried on her part in order to legitimize the sole (I would say the Raiders) seizure or appropriation of the vast territory of the USSR and its property located both inside the country and abroad.

However, I, as a person belonging to the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, with great respect, in the first part of his article, “Vladimir Putin – a national leader who has made a new Russian great for 8 years” [48]. In an article published online by many Russian publications, speaking against unjustified criticism against him by Boris Nemtsov and V.Milova set out in the brochure, “Putin said. Totals. 10 years. ” In a pamphlet published typographic way a million copies and spread throughout the Russian Federation, in response to the question: When has appeared on the historical map of the world a new state called the Russian Federation? – Wrote the following.

“Although the story of the origin of the Russian people and the state in the areas where these people lived, and has deep historical roots and dates back to the ancient Russian state (Novgorod and Kievan Rus, 862-1240 gg.), But the current state with its federal structure and having the name of the Russian Federation owes its origin to such an empire as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). And in order to verify the correctness of this point of view, take a short look at the history of the origins of the USSR.

So, during the so-called February Revolution of 1917 in Russia was overthrown by the monarchical form of government the royal Romanov family. A 1 (14) September 1917 Russian Provisional Government declared a republic of the bourgeois type. But this form of government was overthrown Russia is on October 27 (November 7) 1917 the same crowd, which operated under the leadership of the Bolsheviks. Then the ruins of the imperial empire created four types of socialist republic: the RSFSR, Ukrainian SSR, Byelorussian SSR, and the Transcaucasian SFSR, which in 1922, on the basis of the “Treaty establishing the USSR” were united into a single state, the composition of which was subsequently extended to 15 union republics . But this the strongest in the world of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics collapsed in 1991, being on the sidelines of global development, especially on the level and quality of life. And in place of that empire have 15 independent states, including the Russian Federation …

Therefore, to assess the activities of a President of the Russian Federation during its almost 20 years of independence only on the basis of indicators that indirectly characterize the socio-economic and political development of the Russian Federation, by comparing them with those of the developed countries that the problems of public Construction has long been solved, and on the basis of socio-economic indicators, which can not be clearly and fully describe the changes in the level and quality of life, is, in my opinion, not only inadequate and inappropriate, but misleading.

On the same basis is not only subjective, but also erroneous and that a negative assessment, which gave Vladimir Putin V. Milov and Boris Nemtsov in this report. They are in their analysis not only ignored the impact of the global financial crisis on the Russian economy, but also does not take into account the most important question, which I mentioned above, which relates to the construction of a new state based on the principles of federalism (emphasis – AR).

In addition, this analysis of Vladimir Putin from the people sent down from high-level government positions in the Government of this country and the members of the governing body of the Joint opposition movement “Solidarity” in any way can not be independent. It can only be subjective and dictated by narrow political interests of the social movement in which they are made and by whom are going to fight for power in elections.

Thus, we can conclude that although the Russian people and its statehood and have deep historical roots, but the current Russia, with a federal polity, was born as a new independent state only in 1991 as a result of the collapse of the peace. A federal state composed of actors who are not only territorial, but the state of the national-territorial unit type, pass the bulk of their sovereign rights of the center – the federal government. ”

However, the Russian authorities for these are my recommendations have not paid serious attention and have not made the proper conclusions. So I’m in another article titled “Have a Russian Republic and Uzbekistan to name a Eurasian Union.” In an article devoted to the analysis of Vladimir Putin’s article “A new integration project for Eurasia – a future that is born today” in a very soft and correct manner explained the inaccuracy of the views expressed in this article it with regard to the Eurasian Union in the version which he proposes to implement. Therefore offered his own version of the project of the Eurasian Union. However, and this is my suggestion was ignored or it, taking into account the views of experts and other CIS countries, was the curtailment of the project. For the later Russian leadership almost that we stop talking about the Eurasian Union, in the sense in which the article said Vladimir Putin, was talking about the Eurasian Economic Union …

So now, when you consider that Uzbekistan, based on its long history, which is well known and Vladimir Putin, too, has the right to be the successor of not only the Soviet Union but also of all Uzbek state, the first of which Russian historians mistakenly called and called the Golden Horde but who bore the name of Uzbekistan, to the territory, which at the time, treated and part of the Soviet Union, which is now occupied and the Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, it is not difficult to conclude that Uzbekistan has the right to make territorial claims all of these republics, as well as China makes similar claims to the territories of many countries, including India, Kazakhstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Taiwan, Japan, etc.

6.2. Why Uzbekistan has the right and should make territorial and other claims of the Republic of Tajikistan?

I’m here to remind readers that, being an economist, I began to seriously address issues of history: the origin of Uzbeks, Tajiks, and other nations, as well as the history of the Uzbek state because of the stupid and unfounded territorial claims not only Tajik historians. Tajik historians, headed by Doctor of Historical Sciences, Academician of the Academy of Sciences of Tajikistan Rahim Masov to such majestic Uzbek city of Samarkand and Bukhara, nominated by them immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and supported by the government of Tajikistan to the highest level and continued until recently.

Moreover, they, especially academic R.Masov, not only territorial claims against Uzbekistan, but also in an insulting manner claimed that the alleged Uzbek nation does not and never was it not until 1924, and that the Uzbeks – is allegedly artificially created in the Soviet time, the nation. And as if all the Uzbeks – is actually Sart, and they – not only as Tajiks. For this reason, I carefully studied the history of the origin of the Uzbeks and Tajiks, and those States that have created the Uzbek people, came to the conclusion that everything is absolutely the opposite. So I, in the face of considerable controversy with Tajik historians and ordinary readers on their part, wrote his articles on these issues, the names of which are listed below in the list of references. Short content of my scientific conclusions set out in this and other articles, finding ever new facts and evidence to support his case can be reduced to this short sentence.

Ethnonym Tajik refers to the Arabs who conquered Central Asia in the VIII century. That is why the Wikipedia article “Tajiks”, referring to the Encyclopædia Iranica, writes: “According to the most reasonable version ethnonim تاجيک tāǰīk related origin of Pahlavi tāzīg« Arab “(rann. tāčīk from the name of the closest to Iran of an ancient Arab tribe Ṭā ʾ ī), present-day . Persian. تازی [tɒ ː zi] or the relevant Sogdian word (* tāžīk), both in the east called the invading Iranian world under the banner of Jihad in the VIII century, Arab armies. “

For this reason, I believe that the basic structure of the population of modern Tajikistan – is, I would say elitist Uzbeks who speak the Persian language, as well as in the XIX century Russian nobility to speak and write in French. A striking example of this is the fact that Leo Tolstoy – a large part of his famous book “War and Peace” written in French.

And this, my conclusion is based not only on the research of Armenia Vambery outlined in his famous book, “A Journey in Central Asia,” published in all European languages ​​in the XIX century, but also on research, published in the XX century. For if in the O.A.Suharevoy said that “Uzbek Bukhara – called themselves Uzbeks, although they spoke exclusively in Persian”, in 1949 anthropologist Balkis Karmysheva found in Baldzhchuvone community, whose members claimed that derive from the Turkic tribes. However, only spoke in Persian and considered themselves “Tajiks kind Turk”. It is on these grounds Jadids Bukhara claimed that the settled population of Central Asia is a single Uzbek nation.

However, one should note the fact that among the general population of Tajikistan, the Uzbeks are speaking Uzbek and Persian languages, there is a part of the population, are descendants of the Tajiks, who are the real Arabs and Persians. Arabs and Persians, the ancestors, and which were the common soldiers of the Arab and Persian-speaking Muslims are converts from Fars, Zagros and Khorasan related to the Iranian people, who came to Central Asia in the VIII century with the Arab invaders [35, 56]. In addition, there are those Persians who were called Tajiks, much later wrote about in his book “Sart. Ethnographic materials (overall sketch), “published in the print shop of the newspaper” The Central Asian Life “in 1908, a great Russian historian N.P.Ostraumov. That is, those oppressed Minorities Uzbek feudal lords in captivity – the Persians, who called themselves Tajiks. These and Tajiks are the descendants of those slaves, that among these are, and Raheem Masov. People in Soviet times, once at the helm of this because of its origin, to fool the illiterate Bolsheviks, in the fact that all the Persian-speaking population of the territory, which was then and is currently ranked Tajikistan – is a separate ethnic group, which has self- “Tajiks”. And that their language is not Persian, and Tajik.

So, what exactly they are, from the beginning of being able to achieve this by creating fraudulent Tajik ASSR part of the Uzbek SSR, and then made and the separation of the autonomous republic of Uzbekistan. This autonomous republic of Uzbekistan, which has become so in 1929 the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic within the USSR, and gained its independence in 1991 and renamed the Republic of Tajikistan. In an independent Tajikistan and indecent historians who, headed by Academician R.Masovym, who organized a relentless media war against the country, with territorial claims on Samarkand, Bukhara and other areas of our country, and also to sow ethnic strife between Uzbeks, mistakenly consider themselves ” Tajiks “and Uzbeks being the titular nation of Uzbekistan. And the most important goal of the information war was to rewrite the history of Tajikistan and Tajiks. Rewrite the history of the Tajiks, non-Arab [60] relating to the number of Semites, on the basis of false theses of their Aryan origin. And based on this false thesis ads have achieved even by the President of Tajikistan Emomali Rahmon of Tajikistan in 2006 – the Year of the Aryan civilization.

So that the rights of Uzbek President Islam Karimov, who was born on Uzbek soil in Samarkand and being on the ethnic origin of thoroughbred Uzbek and as a man, a very good use of the Persian language and knowledgeable in our history, when he stated that: “The Uzbeks and Tajiks – one people speaking two different languages. ” Therefore, considering also the fact that Tajikistan from 1924 to 1929 was a member of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic as the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic, as well as the Republic of Karakalpakstan – so far, Tajikistan volunteered to go back to the Republic of Uzbekistan to the previous status – an autonomous republic.

As for the Rogun hydroelectric power station, which wants to build at any cost is not the people, and the President of Tajikistan Emomali Rahmon, despite the objections of the government of Uzbekistan, as discussed above, on this property, now is very short we can say the following.

Tajikistan does not have the right to build the Rogun hydroelectric power station without the consent of Uzbekistan not only because it represents a threat to the national security of Uzbekistan and build it into the upper reaches of transboundary river Amu Darya. But because this largest facility, even though it is on the territory of Tajikistan, but as the property of the former Soviet Union and bearing a threat to national security in Uzbekistan is not smaller than the nuclear threat is not only of this country but also to all the countries of the former Soviet Union, and in the first instance, the Republic of Uzbekistan. Therefore, Tajikistan has no legal right to independently own, manage and use the object. And even more so to create international consortia for the construction of this facility to other countries, including Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan and China. And if these countries are included in the processes of construction of the Rogun hydroelectric power station, Uzbekistan, given their centuries-old military-political and economic relations with these countries, may bring such countries are legitimate territorial and other property claims.

Moreover, with the emergence of new circumstances related to the territorial claims of Uzbekistan to Tajikistan, the construction of this facility should be immediately suspended pending the resolution of the issue on the basis of the procedures provided for by international law. And in the case of further manifestation of arbitrariness from the Tajik side, after the announcement of the corresponding note of the Government of Uzbekistan for immediate suspension of the construction of the Rogun hydroelectric power station, the Uzbek side appear even allowed to take the object under his control, having carried it under its own jurisdiction, with all the findings of the military and political and economic nature. Now consider the next question.

6.3. Why Uzbekistan has the right and should make territorial and other claims to the Kyrgyz Republic?

Responding to the question, raised in the title of this subsection articles short we can say that: on the same basis as for Tajikistan. But unlike in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan was not part of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, as an autonomous republic. Besides Kyrgyz Backgammon – not the Tajik people, mistakenly identifying themselves among the Arabs and the Persians or the Iranian people, as Uzbeks and Kyrgyz (qirg’iz), in the proper sense of the modern self-definition of the nation, included among the 92’s Turkic families and tribes that make up the Uzbeks. A nation which used to be called Kara Kyrgyz. That is why this nation changed its name several times. This was done so that would be free from the negative prefix or tag to his self-name literally corresponding to the Russian word “black” (kyr. car – black, so the car Kyrgyzstan – Kyrgyz it mean black). And adjust its history under the legally relevant documents of the Soviet era: orders and other statements of the leader of the world proletariat and the oppressed peoples of Lenin on the establishment of the ethnographic map and state disengagement “Kyrgyzstan” on a national basis. But not related to them – Kara Kyrgyz, Kazakhs and the current, which in those days was called themselves, Kyrgyz, and then the Cossacks, but staying on his self-name “Kazakhs”, which I wrote about in their respective articles.

For this reason, the history of mankind prior to 1991 did not know any of the state, which created the nation which used to be called Kara Kirghiz, and now – Kyrgyz. And that territory, which they now occupy, under the self-designation of Kyrgyz, ie the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic, although the proletarian revolution in 1917 and belonged to the Russian Empire, but to the illegal occupation of the territory of the empire of the Uzbek state, as the Khanate of Kokand, belonged to the territory of the estate of the Uzbek state. Therefore, modern Uzbekistan, as the successor of the Kokand khanate, has every right to make territorial claims to the entire territory of the republic, not to mention the property claims of all transboundary watercourses and built on them water networks, including on Kambaratiskuyu HPP-1.

For this reason, i.e. the emergence of new circumstances related to the territorial claims of Uzbekistan to Kyrgyzstan, the construction of this facility should be immediately suspended pending the resolution of the issue on the basis of the procedures provided for by international law. And in the case of further manifestation of arbitrariness with Kyrgyz or Russian side, after the announcement of the relevant notes of the Government of Uzbekistan for the immediate suspension of construction Kambaratiskoy GES-1, addressed to the Russian Federation and Kyrgyzstan, the Uzbek side had a full and valid right to take this under control, having carried it under his own jurisdiction, with all the ensuing conclusions of military, political and economic nature.

Now move on to the next question.

6.4. Why Uzbekistan has the right and should make territorial and other claims of the Republic of Kazakhstan?

In answering this question, it should be noted that the President of Kazakhstan, Mr Nursultan Nazarbayev, loves to exercise initiative on the various issues of our lives: he invites us to join the CIS, the Eurasian Economic Community, the Customs Union, the Eurasian Union. But the last time he called on all Turks, including us, to unite into a single state, with the following words:

“Between the White Sea and the Altai lives of more than 200 millions of our countrymen. If they merged, we would have become a great and powerful country in the world. ”

I personally, as a representative of the Turkish people, are ethnic Uzbeks, I fully agree with his last appeal. For, I believe that the Turkic peoples in their history made many mistakes, undertaking almost permanent and devastating fratricidal war among themselves. Destroying, so even their own great states and their capitals, such as the first independent Uzbek state – Uzbekistan and its capital Saray al-Jadid, Uzbekistan He created the great Uzbek Khan, whom Russian historians specifically called the Golden Horde in order to erase the history of mankind any mention of this great state, under the name of “Uzbekistan”.

Although the Muslim people and do not talk bad about the people who have long since moved to the other world, and even more about their ancestors, but I still let you, yourself some deviation from this rule … For it must be noted that our great ancestor Amir Timur also made serious mistakes, personally destroying the first independent Uzbek government, headed by his own disciple Tokhtamysh instead to forgive him for his disobedience, and to find a way to unite the state with its own state, allowing to take a huge Eurasian space. Such errors can be attributed to its conquest by the Ottoman Empire times Bayezid I. But the most important error, in my opinion, he did not promptly appointing a receiver of its own to the throne of the State in which he created a tremendous effort. For it is precisely for this reason that the Uzbek state, which he had built, very quickly fell apart after his death, which split into separate states Timurid.

If the understanding of the existence of such errors in the history of the Turks and their states, first became aware of the first President of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, at the present time – realized this mistake and our dear Nursultan Nazarbayev – President of the Republic of Kazakhstan. And now began to offer us unite in a common Turkic state. Therefore, the development of its latest initiative to invite him, and in his face and all over Kazakhstan, to set an example. If thoughts of Nursultan Nazarbayev really sincere, then let him peacefully unite the people of Kazakhstan with the Turkic people as Uzbeks and Kazakhstan with the Turkic states like Uzbekistan, voluntarily entering into its structure, thereby contributing to the restoration of its former greatness. For the entire territory of present-day Kazakhstan used to belong not only to the first Uzbek State from 1312 bore the name of Uzbekistan. But first national Uzbek government, which is called the Uzbek Khanate, to say nothing of the Kokand khanate, which proved not only on my part, but also by the Kazakh historians, for which we are very grateful.

And if such a proposal is not acceptable for Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan quite legally, in accordance with international law, and can lay claim to the whole of its territory. For this reason, i.e. the emergence of new circumstances related to the territorial claims of Uzbekistan to Kazakhstan, to address this issue on the basis of the procedures provided for by international law, I believe that Uzbekistan can proceed as follows.

The Republic of Uzbekistan put forward their claims on the basis of ad note demanding the government to allocate a certain territory of Kazakhstan to Uzbekistan, on the basis of the accompanying drawing is carried on a topographic map that enhance its release into the Caspian Sea. In the Caspian Sea, in order to build a their own onshore facilities, as well as cargo and passenger sea terminals (ports).

And in the case of failure to meet this territorial claims from the Kazakh side, the Uzbek side had a full and informed the right to take the territory under his control, having carried it under its own jurisdiction, with all the findings of the military-political and economic nature, with appropriate changes the border between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

6.5. Uzbekistan should make territorial and other claims Russia and Kazakhstan at the same time in order to save the Aral Sea

I am on the issue of the need to save Aralskoogo sea, spoken before. So here, given the fact that this sea dries up due to errors of economic and economic system of the Soviet Union. USSR, not to take any action, other than designing channel “Siberia – Central Asia” because of a hiccup of some writers, authors opposing the idea of ​​Siberian rivers to the Aral Sea, under the nationalist slogan “protect” the natural resources of Siberia, have earned on that basis cheap authority on the part of the Russian people, to support them. And the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan after the collapse of the Soviet empire did not do anything to save this sea, I would like to note that it is for this reason that Uzbekistan must present territorial and other claims against Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, and at the same time both of these states.

This must be done to Uzbekistan in order to save humanity from one of the largest environmental disasters of the modern world – from drying up of the Aral Sea, through the construction, for this purpose, a special channel, the supply to him of the Siberian rivers. Siberian rivers that had belonged to the Uzbek State. And among other claims of Uzbekistan to the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan may include claims related to the financing of the construction of the object, that is, to cover the main part of the estimated cost of this channel.

6.6. Why Uzbekistan has the right and should make territorial and other claims Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Armenia?

In answering this question, I will be brief as, given the fact that, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan has no claims except claims for all of its territory, as to the former territory of the Uzbek states – Uzbekistan, created by Uzbek Khan (1312-1395) and the Khanate of Khiva .

And with regard to Ukraine’s territorial claims relate to the territories of Uzbekistan, who earlier in the days of the first independent state of Uzbekistan (1312-1395) belonged to one of its administrative-territorial units – the Crimean Khanate. Therefore, Uzbekistan, first of all, should require the transfer of its jurisdiction the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.

As for Armenia, in respect of her territorial and other claims came from the fact that due to the use of the Armenian Dashnak by the Bolsheviks to destroy the autonomy of Turkestan. We can say that then, in 1918, the Armenians of the Nationalist Party, “ARF” revenge for the deaths of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the destruction of tens of thousands of citizens of the Turkestan autonomy of the total population of Kokand and Andijan in its elimination by staging a real genocide of Uzbeks in these cities and destroying the capital of this autonomous region – Kokand [65]. Therefore, Uzbekistan must present territorial and other claims to modern Armenia, as a former territory of Uzbekistan, with the additional requirement to return Karabakh to Azerbaijan.

6.7. And why Uzbekistan has to become part of NATO members and turn it in the vanguard in Central Asia?

The current threat to the national security of Uzbekistan, which include the threat associated with excess labor and restriction of labor migration from Uzbekistan to Russia and Kazakhstan, dictates strict condition that Uzbekistan should join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This is necessary in order to become a vanguard (outpost) of the Organization of Central Asia, which has a modern army, which will be mobilized to the part of our youth, labor migration to Russia and Kazakhstan, which obstruct their migration and other services, as well as part of the their populations infected with the ideas of extreme nationalism. And this is happening at a time and in spite of, but the fact that the Uzbeks are the indigenous people and those countries: the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan.

I am convinced that the accession of Uzbekistan to NATO must not only his own, but also the countries of this military-political bloc. Therefore, it appears that the treatment of Uzbekistan to NATO to take it into the ranks of the members of NATO to find understanding and support from the leadership of this organization and of its members, and especially the United States.

Thus, taking for granted the basic thesis, which was formulated at the beginning of the last – of the sixth section of this article, you can make the following brief conclusion.

1. Because of the presence of the military and other threats to the national security of Uzbekistan under the existing military-political and economic circumstances in the world in general and in Central Asia, particularly Uzbekistan’s accession to NATO is for him a vital task that can help to eliminate these threats.

2. Uzbekistan’s accession to NATO is necessary not only his own, but also the countries of NATO and, above all, the United States, to ensure the global balance of military power in Asia.

3. Uzbekistan after joining NATO, taking into account the fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union the Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, only illegally declaring himself the successor states of the Soviet Union, have exceeded their powers by depriving him and other former Soviet states such status should do the placement of U.S. nuclear forces in their own territory. This must be done in order to ensure the balance of power of the military-political blocs of the world on the Asian continent.

5. Uzbekistan is obliged to make territorial and other claims against the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan, at the same time in order to save humanity, including the Uzbek people, from one of the largest environmental disasters of the modern world – from drying up of the Aral Sea, through the construction, for this purpose, a special channel , the supply to him of the Siberian rivers. Siberian rivers that had belonged to the Uzbek State.

Original publication: 12news.uz

Posted on: 07/06/2013 13:14

Phi Beta Iota:  The original English headline is sensationalist, and the original English article does not come anywhere close to capturing the totality of what must be considered a very useful “from the heart: manifesto of grievances past and present.”  Certainly NATO analysts should be reading this carefully, plotting the issues on a map, and briefing their flag officers accordingly.  For our collective, the most interesting aspect of this is the passing reference to the possibility of Russia leading a Eurasian Union, one formed along the lines of the European Union rather than being a different version of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.   We do not discount the possibility of this being a Russian covert action media influence operation, if so it is exquisitely done.  On balance we consider the FULL document, not the sensationalist extracts, to be a quite valuable.

See Also:

NATO OSINT to OSE/M4IS2 Round-Up 2.0